© 2008 International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) Published by the International Institute for Sustainable Development The International Institute for Sustainable Development contributes to sustainable development by advancing policy recommendations on international trade and investment, economic policy, climate change, measurement and assessment, and natural resources management. Through the Internet, we report on international negotiations and share knowledge gained through collaborative projects with global partners, resulting in more rigorous research, capacity building in developing countries and better dialogue between North and South. IISD‘s vision is better living for all—sustainably; its mission is to champion innovation, enabling societies to live sustainably. IISD is registered as a charitable organization in Canada and has 501(c)(3) status in the United States. IISD receives core operating support from the Government of Canada, provided through the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), the International Development Research Centre (IDRC) and Environment Canada; and from the Province of Manitoba. The institute receives project funding from numerous governments inside and outside Canada, United Nations agencies, foundations and the private sector. International Institute for Sustainable Development 161 Portage Avenue East, 6th Floor Winnipeg, Manitoba Canada R3B 0Y4 Tel: +1 (204) 958–7700 Fax: +1 (204) 958–7710
E-mail: [email protected]
Web site: http://www.iisd.org/
Insert Title Here.
Enter subtitle here (if none then delete this text box).
If you have a photo – drop in here. If not then click on box outline and delete
Insert author name(s)
Insert date (Month and Year)
Darren Swanson
Henry David Venema
Christa Rust
Jennifer Medlock
2008
Prepared for the Adaptive Policies Project http://www.iisd.org/climate/canada/adaptive_policy.asp Research Partners: TERI – the Energy and Resources Institute; and IISD – the International Institute for Sustainable Development IISD Gratefully acknowledges funding support of the International Development Research Centre
Understanding Adaptive Policy
Mechanisms through Farm-level Studies
of Adaptation to Weather Events in
Alberta, Canada
Understanding Adaptive Policy Mechanisms Through Farm-level Studies of Adaptation to Weather Events in Alberta
i
© 2009 International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) Published by the International Institute for Sustainable Development IISD contributes to sustainable development by advancing policy recommendations on international trade and investment, economic policy, climate change and energy, measurement and assessment, and natural resources management, and the enabling role of communication technologies in these areas. We report on international negotiations and disseminate knowledge gained through collaborative projects, resulting in more rigorous research, capacity building in developing countries, better networks spanning the North and the South, and better global connections among researchers, practitioners, citizens and policy-makers. IISD‘s vision is better living for all—sustainably; its mission is to champion innovation, enabling societies to live sustainably. IISD is registered as a charitable organization in Canada and has 501(c)(3) status in the United States. IISD receives core operating support from the Government of Canada, provided through the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), the International Development Research Centre (IDRC) and Environment Canada; and from the Province of Manitoba. The Institute receives project funding from numerous governments inside and outside Canada, United Nations agencies, foundations and the private sector. International Institute for Sustainable Development 161 Portage Avenue East, 6th Floor Winnipeg, Manitoba Canada R3B 0Y4 Tel: +1 (204) 958–7700 Fax: +1 (204) 958–7710
E-mail: [email protected]
Web site: http://www.iisd.org/
Understanding
Adaptive Policy
Mechanisms
through Farm-level
Studies of
Adaptation to
Weather Events in
Alberta, Canada
Darren Swanson Henry David Venema Christa Rust Jennifer Medlock 2008
Prepared for the Adaptive Policies Project http://www.iisd.org/climate/canada/adaptive_policy.asp Research Partners: TERI – the Energy and Resources Institute; and IISD – the International Institute for Sustainable Development IISD Gratefully acknowledges funding support of the International Development Research Centre
Understanding Adaptive Policy Mechanisms Through Farm-level Studies of Adaptation to Weather Events in Alberta
ii
Table of Contents Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................... 1
1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 7
2.0 Research Methods ................................................................................................................................. 9
2.1 Site Selection ....................................................................................................................................................................... 10
2.1.1 Exposure Mapping ...................................................................................................................................................... 10
2.1.2 Adaptive Capacity Mapping ........................................................................................................................................ 11
2.1.3. Combining Exposure and Adaptive Capacity Mapping ............................................................................................... 14
2.2 Identifying Community-level Coping and Adaptation Measures .............................................................................. 16
2.2.1 Farm-level Interviews .................................................................................................................................................... 16
2.3 Policy Identification and Analysis ................................................................................................................................... 17
3.0 Observed Community-level Coping and Adaptation Measures ................................................... 23
3.1 Socio-Economic and Ecological Context ...................................................................................................................... 23
3.2 Weather-related Shocks and Stresses ............................................................................................................................. 24
3.3 Coping and Adaptation Measures ................................................................................................................................... 25
3.3.1 Coping with Drought .................................................................................................................................................... 25
3.3.2 Heavy Rains and Flooding ........................................................................................................................................... 26
3.3.3 Extreme Heat .............................................................................................................................................................. 27
4.0 Policies Facilitating Coping and Adaptation Measures .................................................................. 29
5.0 The Canadian Agriculture Income Stabilization Program: An Adaptive Policy Analysis ........ 32
5.1 Policy Intent ........................................................................................................................................................................ 32
5.2 Policy Changes, Drivers and Impacts............................................................................................................................. 32
5.3 Details of Policy Design and Implementation .............................................................................................................. 38
5.3.1 Canadian Agricultural Income Stabilization Program .................................................................................................. 38
5.3.2 Production Insurance .................................................................................................................................................... 39
5.3.3 Advance Payments Program ......................................................................................................................................... 39
5.3.4 Alberta Farm Recovery Plan ........................................................................................................................................ 40
5.4 Identification and Analysis of Adaptive Policy Mechanisms ..................................................................................... 40
5.4.1 Adaptive Mechanism of the Net Income Stabilization Account .................................................................................... 41
5.4.2 Adaptive Mechanism of the Canadian Income Stabilization Account ........................................................................... 42
Understanding Adaptive Policy Mechanisms Through Farm-level Studies of Adaptation to Weather Events in Alberta
iii
5.4.3 Adaptive Mechanism of the New Business Risk Management Suite ............................................................................. 42
6.0 The Alberta Irrigation District Program: An Adaptive Policy Analysis ...................................... 45
6.1 Policy Intent ........................................................................................................................................................................ 46
6.2 Policy Changes, Drivers and Impacts............................................................................................................................. 46
6.2.1 The Early Years: Pre-1920 ......................................................................................................................................... 47
6.2.2 The Adjustment Years (1920 to 1950) ....................................................................................................................... 48
6.2.3 Rehabilitation and Expansion of the Delivery Systems (1950 to 1970) ...................................................................... 49
6.2.4 Provincial and Irrigation District Control (1970 to 1990) ........................................................................................... 50
6.2.5 Major Water Law Reforms (1990-present) .................................................................................................................. 51
6.3 Details of Policy Design and Implementation .............................................................................................................. 53
6.3.1 Governance Structure .................................................................................................................................................... 53
6.3.2 Changes under the New IDA ...................................................................................................................................... 54
6.4 Identification and Analysis of Adaptive Policy Mechanisms ..................................................................................... 55
6.4.1 Automatic Adjustment ................................................................................................................................................. 55
6.4.2 Integrated Assessment ................................................................................................................................................... 56
6.4.3 Multi-perspective Deliberation ...................................................................................................................................... 56
6.4.4 Self-organization and Social Networking ...................................................................................................................... 57
6.4.5 Formal Review and Continuous Learning .................................................................................................................... 60
6.4.6 Subsidiarity .................................................................................................................................................................. 61
7.0 Conclusions .......................................................................................................................................... 63
7.1 Do Public Policies that Build the Capacity of Communities to Cope with Surprise and Change have Adaptive
Features? ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 63
7.2 What Adaptive Features Enable Policies to Remain Effective? ................................................................................ 65
8.0 References ............................................................................................................................................ 70
Understanding Adaptive Policy Mechanisms Through Farm-level Studies of Adaptation to Weather Events in Alberta
1
Executive Summary
Governments must operate in an ever-changing and uncertain world. We know for example that the
climate is changing, but not precisely how or what the specific impacts will be–introducing yet more
complexity to fields such as agriculture and water resources management. We know that energy
prices are highly unpredictable and that international trade rules are in a state of flux–creating
further challenges for development policy. The impact of our economic activity and our cultural
connectedness today evoke types of responses in society and our ecosystems for which we have no
prior experience.
Crafting policies in this setting to address acute issues, be they economic, social or environmental, is
inherently complex and dynamic–this is the reality facing today‘s policymaker. The climate change
issue is a case in point and has provided motivation for this research on adaptive policies. Higher
variability in hydrology is projected by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in their most
recent report, evoking great concern in such areas as world food supply, power generation and
irrigation, just to name a few.
Experience demonstrates that policies crafted to operate within a certain range of conditions are
often confronted by challenges outside of that range. The result is that many policies don‘t
accomplish their goals and have unintended or perverse impacts. Therefore, to help policies help
people, policymakers need ways to craft policies that can adapt to a range of anticipated and
unanticipated conditions.
The multi-year Adaptive Policies research project endeavours to identify mechanism that help public
policies adapt to anticipated and unanticipated conditions. This report studies farm-level coping and
adaptation measures for weather shocks (for example, flooding) and stresses (for example, drought),
identifies policies which have aided these measures and studies these policies for their adaptive
mechanisms. It is the premise of this research project that policies which have either aided or
impeded a farmer‘s ability to cope with change, are also likely to contain mechanisms which have
helped the policy itself adapt to changing circumstances.
Coping and Adaption Measures used by Farmers
Case study locations were identified by examining the historic exposure to climate stress–as
represented by precipitation variability, and adaptive capacity–as represented by a suite of socio-
economic and environmental indicators obtained from the Canada Census of Agriculture and reflect
the determinants of adaptive capacity. Two locations were selected having similar levels of historic
Understanding Adaptive Policy Mechanisms Through Farm-level Studies of Adaptation to Weather Events in Alberta
2
climate stress, but with potentially varying levels of adaptive capacity. The study areas were near
Coaldale and Foremost.
Three major weather extremes were common to both areas: drought conditions in 2001; heavy
rainfall and flooding that took place in June of 2002; and, the extreme heat and dryness reported in
2007 (especially in July).
For drought, crop insurance was commonly used by farmers in both regions to cope over the short
term, while minimal and reduced tillage techniques, crop diversification, crop rotation and the
selection of crops that were better suited to drought conditions were some of the common long-
term strategies. Unique to Coaldale were irrigation related strategies and the ability to divert water,
purchase more water rights and the use of efficient irrigation technology. In the Foremost region,
farmers could do little about obtaining more water. Over the short term, they made efforts to
reduce their input costs and become more financially sound. Long-term strategies included
participation in market research groups, the use of technology that minimized soil disturbance and
moisture loss, shelterbelts, community water pipelines and the dissemination of local knowledge
between farmers.
In coping with heavy rains and flooding, farmers in both regions made use of crop insurance to
cope over the short term and incorporated long-term adaptation strategies such as crop rotation and
shifted seeding and harvest times. In Coaldale, farmers pumped water off the land, dug ditch and
drainage systems, bought more silage for their cattle, re-ploughed their fields and put sawdust
between the crop rows in you-pick operations. Long-term adaptations unique to this region included
building more permanent drainage systems (water pumps, reduced tillage practices and the selection
of crops that were suited to wet conditions). In Foremost, some farmers felt that they couldn‘t do
anything to respond to wet conditions over the short term, and simply reduced their movement and
disturbance on the land. Long-term adaptations such as rotation to less expensive crops in wet areas
and changing seeding times were similar to techniques employed in Coaldale.
In coping with extreme heat, there were many similarities in the strategies used by the two regions in
their response to drought events. Over the short term, farmers in both regions employed crop
insurance and waited out the extreme temperatures. Many felt that there was simply nothing they
could do in the immediate sense. Over the long term, adaptation strategies included the
implementation of crop rotation techniques, alteration of seeding and harvesting times to take
advantage of early season moisture and the selection of crops specifically suited to the given
conditions. Coaldale farmers were able to increase and shift their irrigation operations, employ
organic farming techniques and made use of government programs to help them cope with the heat.
Foremost farmers tended to use long- term practices that adapt to extreme heat. Continuous field
covers of organic material, either through chemical fallow or leaving trash from harvest are effective
Understanding Adaptive Policy Mechanisms Through Farm-level Studies of Adaptation to Weather Events in Alberta
3
in retaining as much moisture in the soil as possible. The use of improved technology that reduced
the disturbance of the soil and minimized moisture loss were also key strategies for Foremost
farmers. Over the long term, preparation of shelterbelts and community water pipelines offered
further assistance in coping with extreme heat.
Policies Facilitating Coping and Adaptation Measures
Alberta‘s Irrigation District (ID) program, and more specifically, the St. Mary River Irrigation
District (SMRID) has played a key role in helping farmers in the Coaldale region adapt to weather
extremes. A prime example is the water-sharing agreement brokered in 2001 to deal with the
drought conditions. The SMRID was an influential player in negotiating, communicating and
implementing the mitigation plan, which was an unprecedented sharing of water resources for the
common good. The SMRID has also been integral to helping farmers cope with heavy rains.
Directly after the rainfall in 2002, the SMRID assisted the county in cutting roads, helped farmers
pump water and worked with Alberta hail and crop insurance providers to recognize flood areas.
From a long-term perspective, they have worked with the counties to make ―sure that our channels
and waterways are now set up better; we supervise them a little bit better to make sure we don‘t run
into the same problem.‖ The Town of Coaldale has now built storage ponds inside the town to
handle sewer backup (and reduce the risk of overflowing sewage lagoons). For these reasons, the ID
program and the SMRID were studied further with respect to adaptive policy mechanisms which
may have been helping this program perform so well over the years.
Participants in both regions cited the Canadian Agriculture Income Stabilization (CAIS) program in
relation to coping and adaptation strategies. However, the majority of participants thought it was
difficult to use and trigger, complex and always seemed to be changing. In several instances, the
predecessor program to CAIS, the National Income Stabilization Account (NISA) was viewed more
favourably. Participants also noted that a new suite of income stabilization programs will be rolled
out in the coming year under the updated federal Agriculture Policy Framework (APF). This
evolution of income stabilization programs over time was seen as a unique opportunity for studying
adaptive policy mechanisms.
Examples of Adaptive Policy Mechanisms
The CAIS and ID related programs were studied for examples of adaptive policy mechanisms. A
policy that has the ability to adapt to ―anticipated conditions‖ is built upon insights into cause-and-
effect relationships. The mechanisms include:
Automatic Adjustment – Some of the inherent variability in socio-economic and ecologic
conditions can be anticipated, and monitoring can help trigger pre-determined policy
Understanding Adaptive Policy Mechanisms Through Farm-level Studies of Adaptation to Weather Events in Alberta
4
adjustments to keep the policy functioning well.
Integrated Assessment to Inform Policy Parameters – Through an integrated assessment
of causal factors, key impacts and scenario outlooks, policies can be crafted to perform
under a range of anticipated conditions, and possibly function even under the worst cases.
Multi-perspective Deliberation – Deliberative processes strengthen policy design by
building recognition of common values, shared commitment and emerging issues and by
providing a more comprehensive understanding of cause-and effect relationships.
The ability of a policy to adapt to ―unanticipated conditions‖ is a newer notion, based on a holistic
appreciation of system complexity, capacity, performance and dynamics. The mechanisms include:
Formal Review and Continuous Learning – policy review undertaken on a regular basis,
even when the policy is functioning well, can help policies deal with ―emerging‖ issues, and
trigger policy adjustments.
Encouraging Self-organization and Networking – by encouraging interaction, policies
can foster the emergence of innovative responses to unexpected events.
Subsidiarity – by recognizing that action will occur at different levels of jurisdiction,
depending on the nature of the issue, policies can be crafted to assign authority to the lowest
jurisdictional level of jurisdiction consistent with effectiveness.
Promoting Variation – small-scale interventions for the same problem offer greater hope
of finding effective solutions. Diversity facilitates the ability to persist in the face of change.
A summary of the adaptive policy mechanisms observed in the three generations of income
stabilization programs in Alberta and also in the ID related programs is provided below. Examples
were observed across all seven adaptive policy mechanisms. The majority of examples came from
the ID program and in the context of dealing with unanticipated conditions.
One example of automatic adjustment was observed in the ID‘s Irrigation Rehabilitation Program
(IRP) and involved the inter-district funding formula. Fifty per cent of the funds are allocated on the
basis of the number of irrigation acres in each district, and 50 per cent of the funds are allocated on
the basis of the replacement cost of specified infrastructure in each district. Each of these two values
will shift within and between irrigation districts (IDs) from year to year, and thus the policy is able to
adjust for changing needs annually.
For acquiring multiple perspectives from an analytical basis, an example of integrated assessment
was seen in ID‘s Water Sharing Agreement (WSA) in which water supply forecasts and water
rationing strategies for irrigation and non-irrigation users were formulated. There were four
examples of obtaining multiple perspectives through deliberative processes. The first was from the
Understanding Adaptive Policy Mechanisms Through Farm-level Studies of Adaptation to Weather Events in Alberta
5
next generation of income stabilization programs under APF II in which stakeholder consultations
were held to understand sector requirements in the new suite of risk management programs. The
other three examples were from ID-related programs. For example, in developing water transfers,
ID‘s are required to hold a public meeting discussing the potential transfer and must hold a
plebiscite to gain the approval of at least 50 per cent of the irrigators in the district before a transfer
application will go forward to Alberta Environment. Also, in relation to the 2001 WSA, ID‘s
brought together a diverse group of stakeholders (IDs, cities and towns, recreational water users,
industrial water users) who were able to reach consensus regarding how to equitably share the
available water during a drought year.
Examples of formal review and improvement processes were observed in the ID-related programs.
The WSA developed mechanisms to monitor and equitably distribute whatever amount of water
that would become available. A Conservation Holdback provision was developed in which a transfer
application process triggers an environmental review by the Regional Director, giving him/her
discretion to hold back up to 10 per cent of the water allocation being transferred to meet the
government‘s conservation objectives and protect aquatic environments. Also, the Water
Management Planning Process for the South Saskatchewan River Basin (SSRB) committed to
reviewing the regulation in 2000 because of ―limitations of the databases and estimates of current
and future water uses.‖
It was evident that one of the ID program‘s greatest strengths from the perspective of adaptive
policies was its ability to promote self-organization and social networks. In response to the 2001
drought, the IDs organized themselves to create a water-sharing arrangement to allow all license
holders to receive an equitable portion of whatever water would become available. The program in
the SMRID was instrumental in developing networks in the region to work together to construct
emergency preparedness plans. Self-organization was also facilitated through the introduction of
formal and informal water markets within the IDs. By allowing water rights to be tradable, the
province of Alberta has transformed ―historical licenses into marketable commodities,‖ ultimately
providing flexibility in what had become an intractable water allocation situation.
The mechanism of subsidiarity was observed in both the policies studied. Alberta withdrew from
NISA in 1995 based on concerns that government funding was going every year to every farmer
regardless of need. To address this, in 2001 the province of Alberta created the Farm Income
Disaster Program (FIDP) to provide income support to farmers in the province experiencing, for
reasons beyond their control, an extreme reduction in farm income. This illustrates how bringing the
governance closer to the ground (for example, from federal to provincial level) was necessary to
create a program that responded to the needs of farmers. From the Irrigation District Act (IDA),
fees for administration, maintenance and rehabilitation of the irrigation infrastructure are determined
yearly by the ID board. Each district operates independently and how each functions can vary due to
Understanding Adaptive Policy Mechanisms Through Farm-level Studies of Adaptation to Weather Events in Alberta
6
size and physical characteristics, providing needed flexibility for responding to surprises and
emerging issues.
Finally, with respect to the adaptive policy mechanism for promoting variation, under Canada‘s new
agricultural income stabilization program, a suite of programs are being developed to complement
one another and manage risk:
AgriInvest – provides coverage for small drops in income and allows for investments
that help mitigate risks or improve market income; and
AgriStability – provides support when a farmer experiences larger farm income losses;
AgriRecovery – provides a coordinated process for federal, provincial and territorial
governments to respond rapidly when disasters strike, filling gaps not covered by existing
programs; and AgriInsurance – an existing program which includes insurance against
production losses for specified perils (weather, pests, disease) and is being expanded to
include more commodities [Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC, 2007]. This
need for variation was illustrated during the years of the CAIS program in Alberta – the
Alberta Farm Recovery Plan (AFRP) was created in 2007 to address the economic strain
that Alberta farmers were facing attributed to Canada‘s rising dollar, the drop in livestock
prices and high feed prices spurred on by demand for biofuels in the U.S.
Understanding Adaptive Policy Mechanisms Through Farm-level Studies of Adaptation to Weather Events in Alberta
7
1.0 Introduction
This report documents the third of three community-level case studies undertaken in Canada as part
of the Adaptive Policies Project – a joint multi-year research project of the International Institute for
Sustainable Development (IISD). The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), and the International
Development Research Centre (IDRC).
The Adaptive Policies Project attempts to address two main questions:
1. Do public policies that build the capacity of communities to cope with surprise and
long-term change have adaptive features?
2. What are the adaptive features that enable policies to remain effective despite
changes in external conditions?
Experience demonstrates that policies crafted to operate within a certain range of conditions are
often confronted by challenges outside of that range. The result is that many policies don‘t
accomplish their goals and have unintended or perverse impacts. Therefore, to ensure policies help
people, policymakers need ways to craft guidelines that can adapt to a range of anticipated and
unanticipated conditions.
This multi-year Adaptive Policies (AP) research project endeavours to identify mechanisms that help
public policies adapt to anticipated and unanticipated conditions. This report studies farm-level
coping and adaptation measures for weather shocks (for example, flooding) and stresses (for
example, drought), identifies policies which have aided these measures and studies these policies for
their adaptive mechanisms. It is the premise of this research project that policies which have either
aided or impeded a farmer‘s ability to cope with change, are also likely to either contain mechanisms
which have helped the policy itself adapt to changing circumstances.
Included in this case study is a summary report on the results of 30 farm-level surveys for two
locations in the southern region of Alberta. The surveys were conducted by Jennifer Medlock and
Andrew McCoy of Times Two Consulting and are discussed in Sections 3 and 4. This field research
was funded and supervised through the (AP) project and also through The Prairie Climate Resilience
Project (PCRP), funded by Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation Directorate, Natural Resources
Canada.
Two particular public policies were analysed further in this case study for their adaptive policy
features. These included the Canadian Agricultural Income Stabilization (CAIS) program, and
Alberta‘s ID program. The adaptive policy analyses for these two programs were undertaken by
Understanding Adaptive Policy Mechanisms Through Farm-level Studies of Adaptation to Weather Events in Alberta
8
Christa Rust of IISD (see Section 5) and Jennifer Medlock of Times Two Consulting (see Section 6),
respectively.
Understanding Adaptive Policy Mechanisms Through Farm-level Studies of Adaptation to Weather Events in Alberta
9
2.0 Research Methods
The research methodology used for this community case study is similar to the methodology of the
first two community-level case studies undertaken in Manitoba and Saskatchewan. The methodology
is based on four logical elements:
selection of study sites which have been subject to high climatic variability;
identification of adaptive measure by farmers at those sites;
establishment of convincing linkages between those measures and government policies
that influenced them; and
analysis of the policies themselves for adaptive features.
Previous IISD and TERI research has mapped areas of high climatic variability and vulnerability in
the Canadian Prairies and in India. The research teams, both in Canada and India, are using this
previous research to select case study areas that have been exposed to significant climatic
variability/extreme events. The assumption is that community members who remain actively
involved in agriculture have had to adapt in order to remain so. Therefore, these high-variability sites
will be prime locations for seeking evidence of adaptive measures.
Through local surveys, interviews and other methods, the field researchers identified successful
coping and adaptation measures by farmers. The measures that are identified in the field include
individual, household and collective behaviours at the community level. Using a variety of methods
and informants, the field researchers studied the linkages between successful or popular adaptation
measures to enabling factors that have facilitated these measures. These enabling factors include
agricultural and water management policies, as well as other socio-economic and ecologic factors.
Policy linkages may be first-order (direct) or second-order, acting through intermediate enabling
factors. For example, local respondents may report that an important adaptation measure has been
the diversification of their agricultural production, among various crops with differentiated markets.
This behaviour may have been fostered by an intermediate organization (for example, cooperative)
that supports marketing of different crops and provides market information and advice to farmer-
members for a variety of crops. The co-operative itself is not a policy, but there may be national
policies that played a strong role in the establishment of co-operatives (for example, financing,
purchase agreements and transportation support). Crop diversification is the behaviour, co-operative
organization is the key enabling factor, but credit guarantees for farmer co-ops may be an important
second-order policy supporting the diversification of agricultural production. This research may also
choose to identify policies that appear to have hampered or constrained local adaptive measures.
Understanding Adaptive Policy Mechanisms Through Farm-level Studies of Adaptation to Weather Events in Alberta
10
Having identified a set of policies that can be linked to the observed and reported coping and
adaptation measures, researchers will analyze these for their adaptive mechanisms. This work should
help to confirm whether policies that aid local communities to adapt successfully are themselves
intrinsically ―adaptive.‖
2.1 Site Selection
Case study site locations were identified using a combination of historical climate data to describe
climate exposure (E), and socio-economic data which described adaptive capacity (A). This
methodology is founded in the vulnerability approach where system vulnerability (V), is
conceptualized as function of a system‘s exposure to E and A to deal with those effects. The more
exposed a system is to a particular climate stimulus, the greater the system vulnerability, and
conversely, the greater the adaptive capacity of the system to a given climate event, the lower its
vulnerability. Smit and Pilifosova (2003) express this relationship formally as:
Vit s = f (Eit s, Ait s)
Where
Vit s = vulnerability of system i to climate stimulus s in time t
Eit s = exposure of i to s in t
Ait s = adaptive capacity of i to deal with s in t
For the Alberta case studies, two locations were selected that exhibited similar levels of exposure
based on precipitation variability, but exhibited different levels of adaptive capacity based on
available socio-economic and environmental data.
2.1.1 Exposure Mapping
First, an exposure map was generated based on a coefficients of variability calculated from average
precipitation data (1960-2002). The data were compiled by the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation
Administration (PFRA) for IISD‘s Prairie Climate Resilience Project. The coefficient of variability is
presented on Figure 2-2.
Understanding Adaptive Policy Mechanisms Through Farm-level Studies of Adaptation to Weather Events in Alberta
11
Figure 2-2: Precipitation variability map–Coefficients of variability calculated from average precipitation data, (1960-2002).
2.1.2 Adaptive Capacity Mapping
Second, as part of the PCRP, socio-economic and environmental data were compiled to map the
adaptive capacity across 53 census divisions in the prairie agriculture region (Swanson et al., 2007). In
our analysis, it was possible to extract data for 20 indicators from the 2001 Census of Agriculture
and Census of Population relating to six determinants of adaptive capacity–Economic resources;
Technology; Infrastructure; Information, skills and management; Institutions and networks, and
Equity (based on Smit et al., 2001). We developed an index of adaptive capacity for each of the 53
census divisions in the prairie agriculture region and then mapped these indices on a relative basis
for each census division (i.e., census divisions ranked according to index value).
The results of the adaptive capacity mapping are presented in Figure 2-3. Census divisions exhibiting
the highest adaptive capacity were clustered near urban centres in three main corridors (in Manitoba
around Winnipeg extending south along and to the east of the Red River; in Saskatchewan from the
Saskatoon area to Regina; and in Alberta extending southeast of Calgary to the United States
border). Census divisions exhibiting the lowest adaptive capacity were typically along the northern
boundaries of the Prairie agricultural region.
Contributing to the higher adaptive capacity in census divisions near urban centres were aspects
such as:
off-farm earnings;
diversity of employment opportunities;
computer technology;
Understanding Adaptive Policy Mechanisms Through Farm-level Studies of Adaptation to Weather Events in Alberta
12
use of computers in farm management;
transportation networks;
email and Internet use to keep abreast of current climate trends and innovative
farming practices; and
opportunities to access agricultural education institutions.
Census divisions along the northern extent of agriculture were disadvantaged with regard to these
aspects of adaptive capacity.
Understanding Adaptive Policy Mechanisms Through Farm-level Studies of Adaptation to Weather Events in Alberta
13
Figure 2-3: Adaptive capacity indices for census divisions in the prairie agriculture region–relative rankings (1
being the highest and 53 the lowest rank).
Understanding Adaptive Policy Mechanisms Through Farm-level Studies of Adaptation to Weather Events in Alberta
14
2.1.3. Combining Exposure and Adaptive Capacity Mapping
Field case study locations were identified by overlaying the exposure map (precipitation variability
map) with the adaptive capacity map (Figures 2-4 and 2-5). This we refer to as a vulnerability space
map. The intention here was to identify two study locations that had similar levels of exposure, but
which differed with respect to adaptive capacity.
Based on these criteria, two case study locations were selected: one in the vicinity of Coaldale, the
other in the vicinity of Foremost, Alberta. Coaldale is located 12 km east of the city of Lethbridge in
Southern Alberta. Foremost, is located 130 km southeast of Lethbridge and 100 km southwest of
Medicine Hat.
Understanding Adaptive Policy Mechanisms Through Farm-level Studies of Adaptation to Weather Events in Alberta
15
Figure 2-4: Vulnerability space map for the prairie agriculture region.
Understanding Adaptive Policy Mechanisms Through Farm-level Studies of Adaptation to Weather Events in Alberta
16
Figure 2-5: Alberta field study locations.
2.2 Identifying Community-level Coping and Adaptation Measures
To identify farm-level coping and adaptation measures, field research was conducted by Times Two
Consulting in Calgary, Alberta. Jennifer Medlock and Andrew McCoy carried out research, which
involved initial contacts in two case study areas and subsequent interviews with farmers and
organizations. The methods described below are excerpts from the field technical report (Medlock
and McCoy, 2008).
2.2.1 Farm-level Interviews
Forty semi-structured interviews were conducted between November 15, 2007 and February 15,
2008 (15 with farmers and five with agricultural organization representatives in each region).
Interviews were carried out in person or over the telephone and ranged in length from 12 minutes to
1.5 hours, with an average of 50 minutes. Most of the interviews were digitally recorded. The
interviews loosely followed a questionnaire (see Box 2-1), though this was used as a starting point
and further questions/probes were added depending on the responses.
Recruitment for interviewees began with the researchers visiting Coaldale and Foremost to
introduce the project and find contact names. The researchers visited the Chamber of Commerce
and the community centre in Coaldale and attended an Environmental Farm Planning meeting in
Foremost. As well, they attended the Southern Alberta Conservation Association conference on
Nov 27to network with other potential interviewees and did online searches for farm directories.
The ―snowball‖ technique was also used after the first few interviews were completed.
Understanding Adaptive Policy Mechanisms Through Farm-level Studies of Adaptation to Weather Events in Alberta
17
Potential interviewees were contacted by telephone and further information on the project, along
with the questionnaire and consent form, was sent by email or fax in advance of a scheduled
interview.
2.3 Policy Identification and Analysis
A set of criteria helped guide the selection of policies for further analysis of adaptive policy
mechanisms. These criteria included:
The policy is related to agriculture and water resources management.
The policy is mentioned by more than one interviewee.
The policy has been implemented in different locations, or over long time span with some
common basis of design.
Information is available and the persons involved with the policy are accessible.
It is not too outdated.
The policy has been helpful or neutral over time, but not a constraint on adaptation.
Understanding Adaptive Policy Mechanisms Through Farm-level Studies of Adaptation to Weather Events in Alberta
18
Table 2-1: Indicators Identified for the Aspects of Adaptive Capacity
Determinant Aspect Indicator
Income generation relative to capital investment
Ratio of gross farm receipts to total capital investment. Higher is better.
Income generation relative to summary expenses
Ratio of income to expenses. Higher is better.
Off-farm earnings Off-farm earnings as a percent of total family income where families have at least one farm operator. Higher is better.
Diversity of employment opportunities Ratio of off-farm contribution of time to on-farm contribution of time. Not available with current dataset. Alternative was the ratio of employment in agriculture to employment in other industries within CD. Lower is better.
Water access technology Ratio of value of irrigation equipment to value of all other farm equipment. Higher is better.
Computer technology Ratio of farms reporting use of computer to all other farms. Higher is better.
Technological flexibility Ratio of value in tractors under 100 hp to total value of all other tractors. Lower is better.
Technological exposure Ratio of technologically-demanding to less demanding farm types. Higher is better.
Enterprise information management Ratio of farms reporting computer livestock and crop record keeping to all other farms. Higher is better.
Sustainable soil resource management practices
Ratio of area of no-till or zero till seeding to tilled area. Higher is better.
Sustainable environmental management practices
Ratio of farms reporting windbreaks and shelter belts to all other farms. Higher is better.
Human resources management Ratio of total farms reporting paid agriculture labour to all other farms. Higher is better.
Soil Resources Proportion of area in dependable agricultural land. Higher is better.
Surface Water Resources Ratio of surface water area to total land area. Higher is better.
Groundwater Resources No. and/or yield of wells. Higher is better.
Transportation Network Ratio of high-capacity—to-low-capacity roads. Higher is better.
Informal operating arrangements Ratio of total farms reporting formal agreements to total number of farms reporting sole proprietorships and partnerships without written agreement minus miscellaneous category. Lower is better.
Email use Ratio of total farms reporting Email use to all other farms. Higher is better.
Internet access Ratio of farms reporting Internet use to all other farms. Higher is better.
Opportunity to access agricultural education institutions
Distance between centroids of each Census Division and the nearest regionally significant agriculture institution. Lower is better.
Employment opportunities Unemployment rate from Statistic Canada's 2001 Census of Population 20% Sample Data for population of 15 years and over. Lower is better.
Opportunity to access health and social services
Ratio of labour force in health and social service occupations to all other occupations. Statistics Canada 2001 Census of Population 20% Sample data for population. Higher is better.
Distribution of income - general population
Rating by Alessandro's work as published in Catalogue no. 21-006-X1E (Rural/urban divide is not changing: income disparities persist)
Distribution of income - agricultural producers
Ratio of farms reporting sales in excess of 250k to all other farms. Lower is better.
Equity
Economic Resources
Infrastructure
Technology
Institutions and Networks
Information, skills and management
Understanding Adaptive Policy Mechanisms Through Farm-level Studies of Adaptation to Weather Events in Alberta
19
Once an appropriate policy has been identified using the above criteria, it is analyzed for its adaptive
mechanisms. These mechanisms and their supporting principles are summarized in Table 2-1.
A policy that has the ability to adapt to ―anticipated conditions‖ is built upon insights into cause-
and-effect relationships. Mechanisms include:
Automatic Adjustment – some of the inherent variability in socio-economic and ecologic
conditions can be anticipated, and monitoring can help trigger pre-determined policy
adjustments to keep the policy functioning well.
Integrated Assessment to Inform Policy Parameters – through an integrated assessment of
causal factors, key impacts and scenario outlooks, policies can be crafted to perform under a
range of anticipated conditions, and possibly function even under worst cases.
Multi-perspective Deliberation – deliberative processes strengthen policy design by building
recognition of common values, shared commitment and emerging issues, and by providing a
more comprehensive understanding of cause-and effect relationships.
The ability of a policy to adapt to ―unanticipated conditions‖ is a newer notion, based on a holistic
appreciation of system complexity, capacity, performance and dynamics. Mechanisms include:
Formal Review and Continuous Learning – policy review undertaken on a regular basis, even
when the policy is functioning well, can help policies deal with ―emerging‖ issues and trigger
policy adjustments.
Encouraging Self-organization and Networking – by encouraging interaction, policies can
foster the emergence of innovative responses to unexpected events.
Subsidiarity – by recognizing that action will occur at different levels of jurisdiction,
depending on the nature of the issue, policies can be crafted to assign authority to the lowest
jurisdictional level of jurisdiction consistent with effectiveness.
Promoting Variation – small-scale interventions for the same problem offer greater hope of
finding effective solutions. Diversity facilitates the ability to persist in the face of change.
An analysis of the complete policy chain is necessary to identify important mechanisms which help
policies adapt to shocks and stresses. The policy chain is a depiction of the stages of policy design
and implementation as they pertain to the roles and responsibilities of the different actors involved.
Figure 2-7 presents an idealized process of policy design and implementation. Policies are designed
with varying degrees of consultation with relevant stakeholders and it is typically the case that an
institution or organization different from the one which designed the policy is responsible for
implementing the policy.
Understanding Adaptive Policy Mechanisms Through Farm-level Studies of Adaptation to Weather Events in Alberta
20
Figure 2-7: Idealized illustration of policy design and implementation.
Instrument
Design
Monitoring,
Evaluation &
Improvement
Understanding
the Issue
Objective
Setting
Policy
Design
Learning &
Improvement
Staff
Training
Operation
Policy
ImplementationDelivery
System
Development
Monitoring &
Evaluation
Understanding Adaptive Policy Mechanisms Through Farm-level Studies of Adaptation to Weather Events in Alberta
21
Table 2-2 Framework for Adaptive Policies
Objectives Adapting to Anticipated Conditions Adapting to Unanticipated Conditions
Analytical Basis Analysis of cause/effect and outcomes Holistic appreciation of system complexity, capacity, performance and dynamics
Adaptive policy principles
Fine-tune the process.4
Incorporate monitoring and remedial mechanisms.8
Understand carefully the attribution of credit.9
Respect history14
Understand local conditions, strengths and assets.4
Place effort on determining significant connections rather than measuring every thing.9
Look for linkages in unusual places.9
Gather multiple perspectives from range of stakeholders.8
Use deliberative practice to build trust and consensus.10
Use epistemic communities to inform policy design and implementation.11
Conduct selection by evaluating performance of potential solutions, and selecting the best candidates for further support.4
Policies should test clearly formulated hypotheses.5
Evoke disturbance.6
Create opportunity for self-organization and build networks of reciprocal interaction.4, 6
Promote effective neighbourhoods of adaptive cooperation.9
Facilitate copying of successes.9
Ensure that social capital remains intact.12
Match scales of governance and ecosystems.6
Clearly identify the appropriate spatial and temporal scale to enable integrated management.13
Promote variation, diversity4, 6 and redundancy.6
Adaptive policy mechanisms
Automatic adjustment
Integrated assessment
Multi-perspective deliberation
Formal review and continuous learning
Encouraging self-organization and networks
Subsidiarity Promoting variation
Understanding Adaptive Policy Mechanisms Through Farm-level Studies of Adaptation to Weather Events in Alberta
22
Some of the inherent variability in socio-economic and ecological conditions can be anticipated, and monitoring can help trigger important policy adjustments to keep the policy functioning well.
Through an integrated assessment of causal factors, key impacts and scenario outlooks, policies can be crafted to perform under a range of anticipated conditions, and possibly function even under worst cases.
Deliberative processes strengthen policy design by building recognition of common values, shared commitment and emerging issues, and by providing a comprehensive understanding of causal relationships.
Policy review undertaken on a regular basis even when the policy is functioning well, will help policies deal with “emerging” issues, and can trigger policy adjustments to conditions that could not have been anticipated.
Encourage interaction and initiative to foster emergence of innovative responses to unanticipated events. Provide space for flexible responses and reduce barriers to collaboration and learning.
Subsidiarity recognizes that action will occur at different levels of jurisdiction, depending on the nature of the issue. It assigns priority to the lowest jurisdictional level of action consistent with effectiveness.
Small-scale interventions for the same problem offers greater hope of finding effective solutions.4
Diversity facilitates the ability to persist in the face of change, and spreading risks is part of managing complex systems.6
Table Notes:
1 Senge, P., 1993. The Fifth Discipline: the art and practice of the learning organization. New York. Currency Doubleday.
2 Dewey, J., 1927. The Public and its Problems. New York. Holt and Company. In Busenburg G J., 2001. Learning in organizations and public policy. Journal of
Public Policy 21(2), 173-189.
3 Walker, W. E., Rahman S. A., and Cave J., 2001. Adaptive policies, policy analysis, and policy-making. European Journal of Operational Research 128, 282-
289.
4 Glouberman, S., Campsie P., Gemar M., and Miller G., 2003. A Toolbox for Improving Health in Cities. Ottawa, Canada. Caledon Institute for Social Policy.
5 Lee, K., 1993. Compass and Gyroscope: integrating science and politics for the environment. Washington, DC. Island Press.
6 Berkes, F., Colding J., and Folke C., 2003. Navigating Social-Ecological Systems: building resilience for complexity and change. UK Cambridge University
Press [based on Panarchy].
7 IISD (International Institute of Sustainable Development), 1994. Principles of Trade and Sustainable Development. Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.
8 Holling, C. S., 1978. Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management. Chichester. John Wiley, 377.
9 Axelrod, R. and Cohen M. D., 2000. Harnessing Complexity: organizational implications of a scientific frontier. New York. Basic Books.
10 Forester, J., 1999. The Deliberative Practitioner: encouraging participatory planning processes. Cambridge. MIT Press.
11 Haas, P M., 1992. Epistemic communities and international policy coordination. International Organization 46(1), 1-35.
12 Ruitenbeek, J. and Cartier C., 2001. The Invisible Wand: adaptive co-management as an emergent strategy in complex bio-economic systems. Indonesia:
Centre for International Forestry Research., 13 IUCN 2000. The Ecosystem Approach. The World Conservation Union.
Understanding Adaptive Policy Mechanisms Through Farm-level Studies of Adaptation to Weather Events in Alberta
23
3.0 Observed Community-level Coping and Adaptation Measures
3.1 Socio-Economic and Ecological Context
Coaldale, a town of 6,200 people, is located 12 kilometres east of the city of Lethbridge in Southern
Alberta. A defining characteristic of agriculture in the area is the irrigated water system. The broader
Southern Alberta region contains 1.5 million acres of irrigated land, comprising two-thirds of the
total number of irrigated acres in Canada. Farmland in the Coaldale region, therefore, is dominated
by irrigated land, though some farmers also work small numbers of dryland acres as part of their
operations. Typical crops grown in the region are sugar beets, potatoes, beans, corn, wheat, canola
and barley. As well, irrigation has supported the development of dairy, hog and cattle operations.
Coaldale is located within the SMRID, one of a network of 13 irrigation districts within the
province.
Also important to the context of farming in Coaldale is the presence of three large processing plants
within a half-hour‘s drive of the town centre. Rogers Sugar has a long-standing sugar beet processing
plant in Taber, and contracts with approximately 400 local sugar beet farmers. As well, two potato
processing plants were built in 1999, McCain‘s in Coaldale, and Lamb-Weston in Taber.
Foremost, a community of 524 people, is the county seat for Forty Mile County and is located 130
km southeast of Lethbridge and 100 km southwest of Medicine Hat. The county is approximately
7,200 km2 and is located in an extremely dry region in the very southeast part of the province. There
are approximately 750 farms within the county, half of them over 1,000 acres and half under 1,000
acres. Most are grain and cereal operations, some are mixed cattle and grain and some are cattle-only
operations. Approximately one quarter of the county is irrigated in the Bow Island area, and these
farmers are able to grow a wider variety of crops that have higher water requirements, including
potatoes, corn, canola and mustard. To date though, the farmers that have been interviewed are not
within this area of the county and do not participate in irrigation programs. Farmers interviewed to
date produce oilseeds, cereals (barley and durum wheat), pulses, peas and native grassland for cattle.
Some interviewees have participated in livestock production in the past (cattle and sheep), but have
since switched to crops.
Both of the case study locations lie within the famed Palliser Triangle. From 1857 to 1860 Captain
John Palliser led a group of scientists into what was then the virtually unknown (to Europeans)
territory lying west of what is now Manitoba. Palliser‘s group, known as the British North American
Exploring Expedition, was charged by the government of the day with exploring, studying, and
mapping the plains between the North Saskatchewan River and the American border (see Figure 3-
1). They identified a triangular region roughly bounded by the lines adjoining Cartwright, Manitoba;
Understanding Adaptive Policy Mechanisms Through Farm-level Studies of Adaptation to Weather Events in Alberta
24
Lloydminster, Saskatchewan; and Calgary, Alberta. This area became known as the Palliser Triangle,
an arid region unsuitable for settled cultivation. Palliser warned that disaster would befall those who
tried to settle the region.
Figure 3-1: The Palliser Triangle within the prairie agricultural region (from Spry, 1968; in Lemmen et al., 1997).
3.2 Weather-related Shocks and Stresses
Table 3-2 provides a comparison of extreme weather events in Coaldale and Foremost as reported by
interview participants. The extremes that were identified by a large number of participants are in
italicized text.
Table 3-2: Comparing Extreme Weather Events in Coaldale and Foremost
Year Coaldale Events Foremost Events
2000 Drought conditions (entire season) (C2, C11)
Drought conditions (F1, F2, F4, F6, F8, F11, F12, F13, F6, F9, F7, F5, F17, F19, F18)
2001 Drought conditions (entire season) (C2, C3, C4, C5, C6, C8, C9, C10, C11, C13, C18, C20)
Drought conditions
2002 Heavy rainfall and flooding (June) (C2, C4, C5, C6, C8, C9, C10, C11, C13, C17, C19)
Heavy rainfall and flooding (June) (F1, F2, F5, F6, F11, F17, F1, F8) Extremely dry July (F6) Frost event in mid-August (F1)
2003 Extreme heat–more than 30°C for eight days straight (C1)
No rain through July of this year (F6)
2004 Hail (July) (F2)
2005 Heavy rainfall and flooding (June and September) (C1, C2, C3, C4, C5, C7, C9, C12, C13, C14, C17, C18, C20)
Dry spring, wet start of summer, dry July (F6)
2006 Strong winds (spring and fall) (C1, C20) Heavy rains (June) (C9, C14)
Hot and dry July (F6)
Understanding Adaptive Policy Mechanisms Through Farm-level Studies of Adaptation to Weather Events in Alberta
25
2007 Extreme heat and drought (C4, C7, C8, C9, C10, C14, C15, C16, C19, C20) Hail (August) (C4, C9)
Extreme heat and drought (F1, F2, F4, F8, F11, F16, F14, F17)
Note: C1…Cn and F1…Fn are respondent identifiers.
From Table 3-2, it can be seen that three major weather extremes are common to both areas–the
drought conditions in 2001, the heavy rainfall and flooding in June 2002 and the extreme heat and
dryness reported in 2007 (especially in July). Furthermore, the drought conditions of 2000 that were
described by a majority of Foremost interviewees were also mentioned by two of the interviewees in
Coaldale. The single extreme weather event that seems to be distinct to Coaldale is the heavy rains
that took place in June and September of 2005. This was not mentioned by any Foremost
respondents.
3.3 Coping and Adaptation Measures
3.3.1 Coping with Drought
Crop insurance was commonly used by farmers in both regions to cope with drought over the short
term, while minimal and reduced tillage techniques, crop diversification, crop rotation and the
selection of crops that were better suited to drought conditions were some of the common long-
term strategies (Table 3-3). Unique to Coaldale were irrigation related strategies and the ability to
divert water, purchase more water rights and the use of efficient irrigation technology. In the
Foremost region, farmers could do little about obtaining more water, so over the short term, they
made efforts to reduce their input costs and become more financially sound. Long-term strategies
included participation in market research groups, the use of technology that minimized soil
disturbance and moisture loss, shelterbelts, community water pipelines and the dissemination of local
knowledge between farmers.
Understanding Adaptive Policy Mechanisms Through Farm-level Studies of Adaptation to Weather Events in Alberta
26
Table 3-3: Coping and Adaptation Measures for Drought
Short-term Coping Measures Long-term Adaptation Measures
Coping with Drought – Coaldale
Diverting water to high-value crops.
Purchasing water rights.
Crop insurance.
No-till practices
Organic farming
Crop diversification and rotation
Crop choices specifically targeted for drought
Changing seeding and harvest schedules
Use of government programs
More efficient irrigation technologies
Coping with Drought – Foremost
Crop insurance helped in some cases.
Reduced level of inputs–lowered costs of operation.
Financially stable–in relatively good condition beforehand.
Minimal/no till methods.
Chemical fallowing reduced soil disturbance.
Participation in market research groups.
Changing types of crops to those that are better suited to the heat.
Use of technology (for example, air drills that minimizes soil disturbance).
Shelterbelts.
Local knowledge systems–networking between farmers.
Community water pipelines.
Crop rotation and continually having organic matter on fields.
3.3.2 Heavy Rains and Flooding
In coping with heavy rains and flooding, farmers in both regions made use of crop insurance to
cope over the short term and incorporated long-term adaptation strategies such as crop rotation
and shifted seeding and harvest times (Tables 3-4). In Coaldale, farmers pumped water off the
land, dug ditch and drainage systems, bought more silage for their cattle, re-ploughed their fields
and put sawdust in between the rows of crops in U- pick operations. Longer term adaptations
unique to this region included building more permanent drainage systems and the use of water
pumps, reduced tillage practices and the selection of crops better suited to wet conditions. In
Foremost, some farmers felt that they couldn‘t do anything to respond to wet conditions over the
short term, and simply reduced their movement and disturbance of the land. Long-term
adaptations such as rotation to less expensive crops through wet areas and changing seeding times
were similar to techniques employed in Coaldale.
Understanding Adaptive Policy Mechanisms Through Farm-level Studies of Adaptation to Weather Events in Alberta
27
Table 3-4: Coping with Heavy Rains and Flooding.
Short-term Coping Measures Long-term Adaptation Measures
Coping with Heavy Rains and Flooding – Coaldale
Pumping water off the land.
Digging ditches.
Changed harvest practices to get more susceptible.
Moved cattle out of pens.
Bought more silage to feed cattle.
Put sawdust between rows of crops (for U-Pick).
Use more fertilizer.
Re-spray fields.
Crop insurance.
No-till practices.
Organic farming.
Crop diversification and rotation.
Crop choices specifically targeted for extreme moisture.
Changing seeding and harvest schedules.
Use of government programs (for example,, IRP).
Building drainage systems.
Purchasing water pumps.
Coping with Heavy Rains and Flooding – Foremost
Lack of response–not a lot that can be done.
Avoidance of fields–reduces damage and input costs.
Reduced movement on the land.
Presence of crop insurance.
Crop rotation–planting of less expensive crops in low-lying and areas prone to flooding.
Earlier seeding times to take advantage of early moisture–enables crops to make it through remainder of season even if it was dry later in season.
3.3.3 Extreme Heat
In coping with extreme heat, there were many similarities in the strategies used by the two regions
in their response to drought events (Table 3-5). Over the short term, farmers in both regions
employed crop insurance and waited out the extreme temperatures. Many felt that there was
simply nothing they could do in the immediate sense. Over the longer term, adaptation strategies
included the implementation of crop rotation techniques, alteration of seeding and harvesting
times to take advantage of early season moisture and the selection of crops specifically suited to
the given conditions. Coaldale farmers were able to increase and shift their irrigation operations,
employ organic farming techniques and made use of government programs to help them cope
with the heat. Foremost farmers tended more towards adapting over the long term to the extreme
heat. Continuous covers of organic material, either through chemical fallow or leaving trash from
the harvest in the fields are effective in retaining as much moisture in the soil as possible. The use
of improved technology that reduced the disturbance of the soil and minimized moisture loss were
also key strategies for Foremost farmers. Over the longer term, preparation of shelterbelts and
community water pipelines offered further assistance in coping with extreme heat.
Understanding Adaptive Policy Mechanisms Through Farm-level Studies of Adaptation to Weather Events in Alberta
28
Table 3-5: Coping with Extreme Heat.
Short-term Coping Measures Long-term Adaptation Measures
Coping with Extreme Heat – Coaldale
Wait it out.
Increase irrigation.
Crop insurance.
No-till practices.
Organic farming.
Crop diversification and rotation.
Crop choices specifically targeted for extreme heat.
Changing seeding and harvest schedules.
Use of government programs.
Coping with Extreme Heat – Foremost
Lack of response–not really a lot that can be done .
Avoidance of fields–reduces damage and input costs.
Reduced movement on the land.
Presence of crop insurance.
Sound financial strategies–saved own money over time.
Selection of crops that are better suited to the heat.
Earlier seeding times to take advantage of early moisture–enables crops to make it through remainder of season even if it was dry later in season.
Crop rotation and higher organic matter levels on fields leads to more organic soil and better moisture retention.
Leaving trash on fields retains snow which increases soil moisture content.
Changing types of crops to those that are better suited to the heat.
Use of technology (for example, air drills that minimizes soil disturbance).
Planting of shelterbelts.
Community water pipelines–aids in day-to-day living.
Understanding Adaptive Policy Mechanisms Through Farm-level Studies of Adaptation to Weather Events in Alberta
29
4.0 Policies Facilitating Coping and Adaptation Measures
Unique to the Coaldale region is the access to irrigation resources and infrastructure. Respondents
in this region highlighted many aspects related to irrigation management such as the water
rationing agreement, calculation of water rations during the 2001 drought year, implementing more
efficient irrigation technologies and receiving help with drainage during the flood.
The SMRID has played a key role in helping farmers in the Coaldale region adapt to weather
extremes. The water-sharing agreement (described above), brokered in 2001 to deal with the
drought conditions, is a prime example. The SMRID was an influential player in negotiating,
communicating and implementing the mitigation plan, which was an unprecedented sharing of
water resources for the common good.
The SMRID has also been integral to helping farmers cope with heavy rains. Directly after the
rainfall in 2002, the SMRID assisted the county in cutting roads, helped farmers pump water, and
worked with Alberta hail and crop insurance providers to recognize flood areas. From a longer-
term perspective, they have worked with the counties to make ―sure that our channels and
waterways are now set up better, we supervise them a little bit better to make sure we don‘t run
into the same problem.‖ The Town of Coaldale has now built storage ponds inside the town to
handle sewer backup (and to reduce the risk of overflowing sewage lagoons).
Three similar rainfall extremes have taken place in Coaldale (June 1995, 2002 and 2005). After the
1995 event, the SMRID, in conjunction with other irrigation districts, affected towns and villages,
water co-ops and others, began developing a disaster communication plan. The dry season of 2001
extended the plan to include responses to both drought and flooding, and the 2002 and 2005 rains
began to test the various components of the plan. One participant noted that ―we now have a
much better idea what can happen, and we‘re much more prepared for it.‖ For example, in
preparation for an extreme rainfall event, SMRID staff is prohibited from taking holidays between
June 1 and June 15. They are all available in case they need to declare an emergency. The plan also
calls for the SMRID to hire vehicles, backhoes, pumps, trucks and whatever else might be needed
to help drain flooded areas. Similarly, a long-term emergency plan is in place for drought, and ―if
we get to a situation where it looks like we‘re going to need to ration, [the SMRID is] prepared to
put the plan into action.‖ The SMRID plan is also coordinated with similar emergency response
plans in the Town of Coaldale, the City of Lethbridge and the County of Lethbridge.
For the most part, many of the other programs and policies referenced and discussed by
participants were common to both regions (Table 3-6). Even though NISA is no longer operating,
participants in both regions commented on the fact that it was preferred to CAIS, which replaced
Understanding Adaptive Policy Mechanisms Through Farm-level Studies of Adaptation to Weather Events in Alberta
30
it.
Table 3-6: Comparison of Programs in Coaldale and Foremost
Program Coaldale Foremost
Canadian Agriculture Income Stabilization program (CAIS)
One interviewee thought it was good.
Remainder thought the program was difficult and complicated to use.
Two participants thought it helped and was a good program.
Majority thought it was difficult to use and trigger; complex and always seemed to be changing.
National Environmental Farm Plan Initiative (NEFPI)
Widely used in region, perceived as useful to farmers.
Farmers already aware of many of the environmental issues that it highlights.
Positive program for farmers.
Downside is that it takes time to get money from the program and doesn’t really tell participants anything they didn’t already know.
Net Income Stabilization Account (NISA)
Viewed more favourably by some participants; seen as more predictable and straightforward.
Used by some farmers and many thought it was the best program going.
Aided farmers by setting aside money that could be used to deal with tough times..
Crop Insurance Roughly half of the participants have crop insurance every year.
One participant stated that it has allowed him to keep farming.
Other participants find it too controlling of their operations to be eligible to make claims.
Mixed reviews–some farmers always have it and feel it is the only useful program.
Others felt it is a mess and not set up to really help farmers address loss of crops.
Complicated and difficult to get adequate returns from the program.
Ducks Unlimited Programs
Some involvement in program–awareness was high, participation limited.
Assisted in some grass seeding and environmental enhancement.
Canada-Alberta Water Supply Expansion Program (CAWSEP)
Some participants made use of program to expand water retention and delivery infrastructure.
Limited participation in program in region–some expansion of community pipelines.
Water Cooperatives So comments. Drought situations led to the development of SE Alberta Water Co-op.
Shelterbelt Program Used by five participants to develop shelterbelts on operations and plants trees in farmyards.
Limited participation by farmers in region; has been used extensively by some farmers to greatly increase shelterbelts.
Canada Alberta Farm Stewardship Program
Used by more than half of the participants to improve infrastructure on farm and to improve technology–double-walled fuel storage tanks, GPS systems and chemical storage buildings.
Limited use; has helped with the purchase and use of some new technology (for example, GPS for machinery).
Understanding Adaptive Policy Mechanisms Through Farm-level Studies of Adaptation to Weather Events in Alberta
31
St. Mary River Irrigation District (SMRID) Program
Irrigation Rehabilitation Program (IRP)
SMRID’s emergency management plan
In many ways, the attitude and participation in each of the programs was similar for both Coaldale
and Foremost. The only real variance between the regions occurred in the number of farmers
participating in the programs. CAIS, crop insurance and the NEFPI were the most widely used
and commented upon programs for both regions. Participants made use of CAIS, but the general
attitude was that it was an overly complicated and difficult program to use. Participant comments
point to the fact that it was poorly designed, that there were high costs associated with submitting
claims through the program and it always seemed to be changing. In the words of one farmer, it is
understandable that it was so complex because how can a program be designed to suit the needs of
over 100,000 farmers nationwide.
Crop insurance was widely used by farmers in both regions and the common feeling was that even
though it might not provide sufficient returns for losses incurred it does offer some protection.
One farmer in Coaldale stated it has allowed him to continue farming. The feeling in Foremost
about the program was more negative. Many farmers felt that crop insurance did not allow them
to make claims on the unique conditions and occurrences on their operations and it was difficult
to get adequate returns for their losses. The National Environmental Farm Planning Initiative was
used widely by participants in both regions and for the most part it was an effective and well-
received program. There were limited criticisms in both regions regarding the fact that it identified
environmental issues that many farmers were already aware of and it could take time to receive
financial support through the program.
Other programs common to both regions, but with limited participation, included the Ducks
Unlimited habitat programs, Canada Alberta Water Supply Expansion Program, the Shelterbelt
program and the Canada Alberta Farm Stewardship Program. Of these, there was more
participation in the Shelterbelt programs by Coaldale farmers than in Foremost. The Stewardship
programs have been used by farmers in both regions. Coaldale participants have used the program
more for the addition of physical infrastructure as well as GPS, while Foremost participants have
used it to improve operational machinery (for example, air seeders) and incorporate GPS into
seeding and harvesting machinery. In Coaldale, the Water Expansion programs were used to build
infrastructure on the farm that was used to retain water, while in Foremost this program was used
to establish pipeline systems to deliver water to farmyards from distant reservoirs.
Understanding Adaptive Policy Mechanisms Through Farm-level Studies of Adaptation to Weather Events in Alberta
32
5.0 The Canadian Agriculture Income Stabilization Program: An
Adaptive Policy Analysis
The Canadian Agricultural Income Stabilization (CAIS) program was created under the 2003 APF.
CAIS combines income stabilization assistance and disaster assistance into one comprehensive
program to help farmers protect their farming operations from both small and large drops in
income.
This policy was selected for study because it was frequently cited this program, and its predecessor,
NISA, was also mentioned by farmers in Alberta and across the prairies in relation to coping and
adapting to weather-related stresses. Additionally, this policy has recently undergone a major
redesign in response to negative feedback from farmers and other experts. With the CAIS program
as the focal point, this section analyzes three generations of income stabilization programs to
detect if any adaptive policy mechanisms were inherent in the evolution of the policy over time.
5.1 Policy Intent
CAIS is built on the philosophy that governments and farmers share in the cost of replacing lost
income. Farmers share the cost by paying an annual participation fee and by absorbing a portion of
their lost income themselves. For smaller losses, governments and farmers shoulder the loss
equally. As losses deepen, the percentage of government‘s share increases to four times the
farmer‘s share.
A loss must occur in order for a farmer to receive government payments under CAIS. Loss is
measured by comparing the production margin with the reference margin. A production margin is
the farmer‘s allowable income minus allowable expenses in a given year. A reference margin is the
farmer‘s average production margin for three of the past five years (in the CAIS calculation, years
with the lowest and the highest production margins are dropped). Once the production margin is
determined, adjustments are made for changes in receivables, payables and inventory in the current
year. These adjustments help to estimate the potential income/loss for the year. When a farmer‘s
program year income falls below his/her historic income, benefits are triggered based on the
magnitude of the margin decline and the farmer‘s selected coverage level.
5.2 Policy Changes, Drivers and Impacts
In Canada, there is a long history of agriculture safety net policies and programs designed to
increase income stability and reduce market risks. During the post-war period many of the safety
net programs focused on traditional commodity price stabilization–Agricultural Prices Support Act,
Agricultural Stabilization Act, Western Grain Stabilization Act, Crop Insurance Act, Western Grain
Understanding Adaptive Policy Mechanisms Through Farm-level Studies of Adaptation to Weather Events in Alberta
33
Transportation Act, Feed Freight Assistance and the National Tripartite Stabilization Program. It
was not until the late 80s the direction of Canadian agricultural policy shifted toward whole farm
income stabilization.
In 1991, the umbrella statute and first generation of safety net programming for agriculture was
enacted. The Farm Income Protection Act (FIPA) provided the framework for the integration of safety
net programs for virtually all commodities–the whole farm approach. Five safety net programs
were developed under this legislation to cover the direct needs of different products.
Net Income Stabilization Account;
crop insurance;
provincial companion programs;
cash advance programs; and
Agriculture Income Disaster Assistance /Canadian Farm Income Program (Zafiriou and
Smith, 2002).
The characteristics of FIPA programs were voluntary; involved cost sharing between farmer and
government, market orientated, based on performance triggers and were actuarially sound. The
intention of the Act was to encourage a more ―market-oriented‖ and ―self-reliant‖ philosophy that
was at the same time intended to be trade- and production- neutral, equitable across provinces and
environmentally sustainable with minimum overlap or duplication of purpose.
NISA was developed jointly between farmers, the Government of Canada and participating
provinces under the new Act with the intention of addressing the level and stabilization of farm
income. Income stabilization encouraged farmers to set aside money in individual accounts in high
income years for use in bad years. Farmers could deposit money annually into their NISA account
based on eligible net sales and receive matching government contributions (federal 2 per cent:
provincial 1 per cent). The maximum amount of annual eligible net sales per individual was
$250,000. In lower income years, farmers could make withdrawals from the funds they had set
aside. Withdrawals were triggered when gross margins fell below a three-year average (gross margin
trigger) or when family income fell below a minimum family income level (minimum income
trigger). The program was designed to help farmers achieve long-term farm income stability on an
individual basis instead of a common insurance type account.
Understanding Adaptive Policy Mechanisms Through Farm-level Studies of Adaptation to Weather Events in Alberta
34
Figure 5-1: History of Canadian Agriculture Income Stabilization.
Using this first suite of safety net programming as a learning tool, FIPA was amended in 2003. The
amendment called for a strengthening of the principles and objectives for safety net programming.
The strengthening led to the APF, a five-year federal-provincial-territorial agreement on
agriculture. The goal of the framework was to help create a national approach to agriculture, one
that provides a solid foundation for success based on five integrated pillars of programming–
Business Risk Management, Food Safety and Quality, Science and Innovation, Environment and
Renewal (AAFC, 2008).
CAIS was introduced under the APF in 2003 effectively replacing the FIDP, Canadian Farm
Income Program and Net Income Stabilization Account. With the introduction of CAIS, the
government tried to address some of the issues identified with NISA. Under CAIS, for a farmer to
receive government payments, a loss must occur. Under NISA, in the previous set of programs,
government payments (matching contributions) were triggered by farmer contributions rather than
actual losses and so payments occurred regardless of loss. Therefore, the timing of payments and
losses are better matched under CAIS than under the prior programs, which will naturally lend
itself to improved stability. Smaller farms had less eligibility to contribute to NISA, meaning less
eligibility for government payments, and so fewer payments were received by farmers in periods
Understanding Adaptive Policy Mechanisms Through Farm-level Studies of Adaptation to Weather Events in Alberta
35
when losses occurred. Under CAIS, participation is based on the same measure as the trigger
(production margin) rather than on sales. Therefore, low sales limiting eligibility for payment
should not be a problem. Conversely, large farms were limited in terms of the stabilization they
could receive by the contribution cap of $250,000 in eligible net sales under NISA. Since deposits
are proportional to production margin under CAIS, and there are no limits on deposits, this is far
less likely to occur under CAIS.
The CAIS program had three components that differed from previous income stabilization
programs:
The measure of farm income cushioned under the program is production margin. It
serves as a trigger for both support payments and farmer contributions.
Farmers make contributions to the program to share financing of triggered payments.
Since support under CAIS is layered, the farmer‘s share of triggered payments decreases
as realized production margin decreases.
Payment is received when current year farm income is less than average farm income from
previous years. The amount of support received is based on the level of protection the farmer
chooses. Unlike NISA, farms with sales of supply-managed commodities are eligible for CAIS,
although under an altered design. This eligibility is based on a farm‘s percentage of supply-managed
sales relative to total farm sales. In the stabilization layers, triggered CAIS payments are prorated
according to the percentage of farm sales from non–supply managed commodities.
Starting March 31, 2008, a new vision for agriculture income stabilization policy will be fully
transitioned with the end of the five-year Agricultural Policy Framework and the birth of the
Agricultural Policy Framework II – Growing Forward. In 2007, agriculture ministers agreed to seek
the authorities from their governments to continue existing programs under the current APF for
up to one additional year while Growing Forward programs are being developed and implemented.
Growing Forward programs were developed based on consultations with over 3,000 participants
from across the country. The programs are guided by a vision for a profitable and innovative
agriculture, agri-food and agri-based products industry that seizes opportunities in responding to
growing market demands and contributes to the health and well being of Canadians (AAFC, 2008).
The new suite of programming combines a contributory style savings account, a disaster relief
framework, an improved margin-based program, expanded production insurance and a cost of
production component. Taken together, these programs represent the federal government‘s
proposal to replace the safety net approach with a more adaptive risk management approach.
Growing Forward is essentially about improving income from the farm through proactive steps to
avert future income declines and grow and adapt the business.
Understanding Adaptive Policy Mechanisms Through Farm-level Studies of Adaptation to Weather Events in Alberta
36
The new suite of programs replaces CAIS, Product Insurance and other safety net policies with a
suite of programs that are designed to be more responsive, predictable and bankable for farmers.
The new approach advances agricultural stabilization policy into the proactive realm of risk
management by improving income from the farm through proactive steps to avert future income
declines and grow and adapt the business. The four programs that form the business risk
management approach are:
AgriInvest – a savings account for farmers, supported by governments, which provides
coverage for small drops in income and allows for investments that help mitigate risks or
improve market income.
AgriStability – provides support when a farmer experiences larger farm income losses.
The program covers declines of more than 15 per cent in a farmer‘s average income from
previous years.
AgriRecovery – a disaster relief framework which provides a coordinated process for
federal, provincial and territorial governments to respond rapidly when disasters strike,
filling gaps not covered by existing programs.
AgriInsurance – an existing program which includes insurance against production losses
for specified perils (weather, pests and disease), and is being expanded to include more
commodities (AAFC, 2007).
The section that follows will provide a brief look at all four of the new suite of business risk
management programs. Not all the programs are fully developed and that is reflected in the
amount of detail available on the program. AgriStability and AgriInvest were the first to be
launched in 2007. Together these two programs replace the coverage previously provided under
CAIS. AgriRecovery and AgriInsurance will be phased in during the transition period allowed by
the one-year extension of the 2003 APF.
AgriInvest replaces the coverage for margin declines of less than 15 per cent previously covered by
CAIS. AgriInvest accounts help farmers protect their farm income from small declines or provide
funds for investment to reduce risks or improve profitability.
The AgriInvest program is delivered by the federal government in all provinces except Quebec.
Under this program, farmers (individuals, partners in a partnership, co-operatives, corporations,
estates, trusts, limited partnerships and landlords in a joint venture) who make a deposit to their
AgriInvest account will receive a matching government contribution based on a percentage of
Allowable Net Sales (ANS) of eligible commodities. Each year, farmers can deposit up to 1.5 per
cent of their ANS into an AgriInvest account and receive a matching contribution from federal and
provincial governments. Farmers will have the flexibility to use the funds to cover small margin
declines or for risk mitigation and other investments. Eligible participants are limited to ANS of
Understanding Adaptive Policy Mechanisms Through Farm-level Studies of Adaptation to Weather Events in Alberta
37
$1,500,000 per year. Based on this limit, the largest matching government contribution would be
$22,500. For the 2007 program transition year, there is no account balance limit. A $600 million
federal commitment during the transition year will kick-off the program providing farmers with
account contributions without requiring a contribution from the farmer. For 2008, ANS limits will
be based on 25 per cent of the average of 2007 and 2008 data. After 2008, accounts will be limited
to 25 per cent of a farmer‘s ANS for the program year and the two preceding program years. If
ANS was not calculated for one or more of these years, the limit will be calculated based on the
average of years available. Farmers are able to take up to two withdrawals from their account
during the 2007 program transition year. Governments are reviewing whether withdrawal triggers
should be in place for 2008 and subsequent program years.
The AgriStability program was developed to help ease economic constraints caused by cost
pressures and rapidly emerging global trends. AgriStability is a federal-provincial program that
builds on past margin-based programming with the addition of a more responsive inventory
valuation, enhanced negative margin coverage, and the new Targeted Advance Payment (TAP).
TAP was created to provide assistance in times of serious income declines. It utilizes the
industry/sector income decline to determine the extent of loss. Based on the industry/sector
income decline and the farmer's reference margins, TAP will help bridge the gap between the time
of revenue loss and the time when the final advanced payment is made under AgriStability.
AgriStability payments are received when farmers‘ current year program margin falls below 85 per
cent of their reference margin providing they have:
six months of farming in their program year;
completed a production cycle in the program year;
the industry/sector income decline lower than their reference margin; and
a significant portion of their farm sales coming from the industry/sector experiencing
the decline (50 per cent or more).
When natural disaster strikes, existing programs do not always address the extent of farmer losses.
In the past, governments have responded to these natural disasters on a case-by-case basis. This
action created uncertainty for farmers while they waited for governments to determine if support
was possible and at what level. At their November 17, 2007 meeting, federal, provincial and
territorial Ministers of Agriculture agreed on the details of AgriRecovery, a disaster-relief
framework which ensures rapid and coordinated assistance for farmers hit by smaller natural
disasters. AgriRecovery will address gaps not covered by the other programs within the Business
Risk Management (BRM) suite. Past programs made no accounts for negative margins.
Governments are putting the necessary authorities in place to implement AgriRecovery and other
Understanding Adaptive Policy Mechanisms Through Farm-level Studies of Adaptation to Weather Events in Alberta
38
programs under the new MRM suite. Disasters covered by AgriRecovery would be regional in
scope, have a relatively moderate impact on the Canadian industry as a whole, be easily contained,
have few trade implications. Larger natural disasters are defined as national in scope, resulting in
relatively large costs to governments, significantly affecting the competitiveness of the Canadian
agricultural sector, resulting in potential health risks to Canadians and resulting in significant trade
implications. Federal, provincial and territorial ministers have committed that their governments
will work together when a large disaster strikes to ensure the needs of farmers are met. Assistance
to address these types of disaster would be cost shared on a 60/40 federal-provincial/territorial
basis. Governments will determine how these larger disasters will be addressed on a case-by-case
basis. This program is intended to provide assistance to farmers in the event of serious income
disasters that go beyond the capacity of coverage for ongoing income stabilization programs.
The AgriInsurance program builds on existing crop insurance and production insurance, and
provides coverage for production and asset losses caused by natural perils. Coverage is expanding
to include other products such as livestock and additional horticultural crops. Under the program,
farmers pay premiums to protect their commodities. Farmers get a payment when they experience
a production loss during the year. AgriInsurance is managed by the Agriculture Financial Services
Corporation in Alberta.
5.3 Details of Policy Design and Implementation
Farm safety net programs are the joint responsibility of the federal-provincial/territorial
governments. Safety net programs in Alberta, such as NISA, disaster programming and crop
insurance, operated under an agreement that expired on March 31, 2003. Knowing that safety net
programs would need to be renewed, the federal and provincial/territorial governments conducted
a review of NISA and other safety net programs. The findings of the review identified several
shortcomings in the set of programs being offered.
To address the shortcomings of the existing agreement, CAIS and Production Insurance, two
national cost-shared programs were introduced in the 2003 APF. The APF and its programs are
the second generation of agricultural income stabilization.
5.3.1 Canadian Agricultural Income Stabilization Program
The CAIS program was conceived as a margin-based program with government payments matched
according to a schedule of farmer deposits. The CAIS program was built on the philosophy that
governments and farmers should share in the cost of replacing lost income. The program is
administered by AAFC for all of Canada except Alberta, Ontario, Quebec and PEI, where the
provincial governments administer the program. In Alberta, the Agriculture Financial Services
Corporation (AFSC), a provincial crown corporation, administers the program.
Understanding Adaptive Policy Mechanisms Through Farm-level Studies of Adaptation to Weather Events in Alberta
39
CAIS integrates whole farm income stabilization and disaster coverage to provide protection
against both small and large drops in farming income. Program benefits are triggered when the
production margin in the program year falls below the reference margin. Farmers participate by
making contributions that are used to finance claims. Farmers make deposits into individual
accounts proportional to their reference margins. The minimum deposit that a farmer must make is
that required to finance the farmer‘s portion of payments to restore 70 per cent of the reference
production margin from a complete loss.
5.3.2 Production Insurance
The Production Insurance program, predecessor of Crop Insurance, was re-branded under the
2003 APF. The program was developed to addresses specific needs by covering additional
commodities and products. The program is a federal-provincial-farmer cost-shared program that
aims to stabilize a farmer‘s income by minimizing the economic effects of production losses caused
by natural hazards. The program objective is to ensure that farmers in the agriculture and agri-food
industry across Canada have access to affordable insurance ultimately stabilizing farmers‘ income
by minimizing economic effects of production losses caused by natural hazards.
These two programs were designed to address the shortcoming of past programs by providing:
permanent disaster coverage for farmers;
equitable treatment to farmers, across all commodities and provinces;
better direction of government dollars to where there is need;
affordable coverage for beginning farmers;
programming that more effectively assists farmers in back-to-back disasters; and
a streamlined set of programs that work well together.
In addition to these programs, there are also two notable programs, one developed prior to the
APF and one developed after the APF, which serve to help stabilize farmer income and
compliment the 2003 APF programming.
5.3.3 Advance Payments Program
The Advance Payments Program (APP) has been available for several years under the Prairie Grain
Advance Payments Act, which covered wheat and barley in the designated areas of the Canadian
Wheat Board (CWB) and the Advance Payments for Crops Act which covered all other crops produced
across the country.
The program provides eligible farmers with cash advances–at harvest of up to $250,000 with the
first $50,000 interest free, to store eligible product (field crops, maple syrup, honey and ranch-
raised fur) after harvest. A cash advance allows the farmer to store the crop and sell it throughout
Understanding Adaptive Policy Mechanisms Through Farm-level Studies of Adaptation to Weather Events in Alberta
40
the year to achieve higher returns and avoid flooding the market with surplus goods. The program
is accessible through the CWB and approximately 50 other farmer organizations, which
administrate the program through an agreement with the Federal Government.
Farmers apply for the cash advance through a farmer organization (not directly from AAFC). The
APP guarantees repayment of cash advances issued to farmers by the farmer organization. These
guarantees help the farmer organization borrow money from financial institutions at lower interest
rates and issue farmers a cash advance on the anticipated value of their farm product that is being
produced and/or that is in storage. The cash advance rate must not exceed 50 per cent of the
average market price that the Minister estimates will be payable to farmers of the agricultural
product in that area. The farmer has until the end of the production period (maximum of 18
months) to repay the cash advance. Farmers have to repay their cash advances as their agricultural
product is sold or when they are entitled to a payment under a BRM program (CAIS or Product
Insurance).
5.3.4 Alberta Farm Recovery Plan
In 2007, the Alberta Government announced transitional assistance for Alberta farmers faced with
the economic strains attributed to Canada‘s rising dollar, the drop in livestock prices and high feed
prices–spurred on by the demand for biofuels in the US. The AFRP was designed to provide an
immediate injection of funds to help the livestock sector adjust to the new market realities of
increased cost pressure and emerging global trends.
The AFRP was modeled on an existing Alberta framework that had a proven track record of
delivering timely payments to farmers–FIDP. The AFRP provides transitional funding which
―targets‖ payments to farmers that demonstrate need. This method eliminates the risk of
compensating farmers for their loss more than once through different programming.
The AFRP builds on the CAIS program by providing an immediate injection of funds to farmers
faced with economic strain. Eligibility for payments under AFRP are determined using 2006 CAIS
calculations. Farmers already participating in the CAIS program at that time automatically saw their
AFRP entitlements calculated. Farmers who were not existing CAIS participants were required to
submit a 2006 CAIS application prior to December 31, 2007 in order to apply for AFRP funds.
Application acceptance for the AFRP funds did not necessarily grant acceptance into the 2006
CAIS program. The 2006 CAIS program year was selected because it represents the most recent
year with complete information and allowed for quicker processing with no application submission
requirements.
5.4 Identification and Analysis of Adaptive Policy Mechanisms
In this section, we examine the specific design features of income stabilization programming to
Understanding Adaptive Policy Mechanisms Through Farm-level Studies of Adaptation to Weather Events in Alberta
41
identify the adaptive policy mechanisms. The analysis is based on the framework for APs described
in Section 2.3. The examination will identify adaptive policy mechanisms that have helped the
policy effectively respond to both anticipated and unanticipated conditions under which the policy
must operate.
5.4.1 Adaptive Mechanism of the Net Income Stabilization Account
NISA is the predecessor income stabilization program to CAIS. NISA was viewed more favourably
across the prairies relative to the current CAIS program. It was believed to be more predictable and
straightforward. In fact, many thought it was the best program going–it aided farmers by setting
aside money that could be used to deal with tough times. Through an analysis of the program, it
has been determined that it has two adaptive features.
Subsidiarity
In 1995, Alberta withdrew from federal NISA program based on concerns that:
a. government funding was distributed every year to every farmer regardless of need;
b. the continuing aversion of the cattle industries to support stabilization; and
c. because accounts were not being drawn down in response to low farm returns (Hedley,
2004).
In 1994, Alberta began extensive consultations with farmers across Alberta. The consultations lead
to the creation of the FIDP and the withdrawal from NISA in 1995. FIDP provided income
support to Alberta farmers experiencing, for reasons beyond their control, an extreme reduction in
farm income. The program responded to the continuing decline in hog prices and the hog
industry‘s position that commodity-specific programming was unacceptable because of trade
implications. The program designed to supplement the net income of farmers, regardless of the
commodity, when the current year net income fell below 70 per cent of the average for the
proceeding five years.
Formal Review and Continuous Learning
While not a mechanisms specific to the NISA policy instrument, the Office of the Auditor General
of Canada audits federal government operations and provides Parliament with independent
information, advice and assurance regarding the federal government‘s stewardship of public funds.
NISA was a federal-provincial cost shared program and it was audited annually.
Automatic Adjustment
In lower income years, farmers could make withdrawals from the funds they have set aside.
Withdrawals were triggered when gross margins fell below a three-year average (gross margin
trigger) or when family income fell below a minimum family income level (minimum income
trigger).
Understanding Adaptive Policy Mechanisms Through Farm-level Studies of Adaptation to Weather Events in Alberta
42
5.4.2 Adaptive Mechanism of the Canadian Income Stabilization Account
CAIS is a program that arose out of the second generation of income stabilization policy. Most
respondents thought that this program was difficult and complicated to use and always seemed to
be changing. Promoting variation is the main adaptive mechanism observed in this agriculture
policy.
Promoting Variation
The Alberta government felt it necessary to provide a greater variety of income stabilization in the
province given that agriculture farmers were exposed to a range of shocks and stresses in the
province. The AFRP was launched in 2007 to address the economic strain that Alberta farmers
were facing attributed to Canada‘s rising dollar, the drop in livestock prices and high feed prices
spurred on by demand for biofuels in the U.S. The AFRP builds on the CAIS program by
providing an immediate injection of funds to farmers faced with economic strain utilizing 2006
CAIS information and illustrates the importance of variation in policy response.
5.4.3 Adaptive Mechanism of the New Business Risk Management Suite
A third generation of income stabilization policy is now being implemented in Canada.. Under this
new policy a suite of business risk management programs are being developed and rolled out.
Through an analysis of the available information on these programs, it appears that two adaptive
mechanisms are being leveraged in the design and implementation of the programs: multi-
perspective deliberation and promoting variation.
Multi-perspective Deliberation
National stakeholder consultations were held with over 3,000 farmers and processors to
understand what the sector requires to effectively manage risk. Additional consultations will
continue to make sure the new suite of programs will:
encourage innovation–from basic research to practical implementation;
generate benefits for the sector and all Canadians by contributing to priorities such as food
safety, environmental sustainability, and health and wellness;
be flexible so that provinces and territories can adapt programs to regional needs;
modernize and put in place innovative regulations and standards, while meeting the needs
of society and helping the sector be competitive; and,
ensure simple, transparent and efficient service delivery for all programs.
Promoting Variation
Under the new income stabilization program that is currently under development, a suite of
programs are being developed to complement one another and manage risk:
Understanding Adaptive Policy Mechanisms Through Farm-level Studies of Adaptation to Weather Events in Alberta
43
AgriInvest – provides coverage for small income declines and allows for investments that
help mitigate risks or improve market income;
AgriStability – provides support when a farmer experiences larger farm income losses;
AgriRecovery – provides a coordinated process for federal, provincial and territorial
governments to respond rapidly when disasters strike, filling gaps not covered by existing
programs; and
AgriInsurance – an existing program which includes insurance against production losses
for specified perils (weather, pests and disease) and is being expanded to include more
commodities (AAFC, 2007).
Understanding Adaptive Policy Mechanisms Through Farm-level Studies of Adaptation to Weather Events in Alberta
44
6.0 The Alberta Irrigation District Program: An Adaptive Policy
Analysis Irrigation plays a major role in water management and allocation in Alberta. More than 1.6 million
acres are irrigated in Alberta, representing two-thirds of all irrigation development in Canada
(Alberta Irrigation Information, 2007). Irrigation accounts for 71 per cent of surface water use in
the province, compared with 15 per cent for commercial and industrial use, and 5 per cent for
municipal use (Nichol, 2005). Delivery and use of irrigation water in Alberta is controlled by 13
IDs, all of which are located within the (SSRB). Each district is run by a board of directors that is
elected by farmers owning irrigated land within the district, a structure legislated by the IDA of
2000.
A prime component of the water allocation system in Alberta is that the right to divert and use
water is prioritized under a ―first-in-time, first-in-right‖ principle. In other words, the rights of
―senior‖ license holders (for example, holders of licenses granted earlier in time) trump those of
more ―junior‖ license holders. The IDs hold the majority of the senior licenses in the province,
giving them priority access to available water. As well, the IDs hold licenses accounting for
approximately 75 per cent of the total volume of water allocated in the SSRB (Bjornlund et al.,
2006). The tremendous volume of water under their control, combined with the seniority of their
licenses, make the IDs dominant players, both economically and politically, in Alberta‘s water
rights regime (Bankes and Kwasniuk, 2005).
This section will describe and analyze the evolution of irrigation district policy in Alberta using its
largest ID (the SMRID) as the main case study.
Box 6-1: What is an Irrigation District?
According to the IDA (2000), an “Irrigation District” is a corporation that operates in a similar manner to a
municipality, with a board of directors responsible for managing the affairs of the district. The main
responsibilities of the IDs are to deliver water to irrigation farmers and maintain the irrigation infrastructure.
Irrigators within the district have their irrigable acres listed on the district’s assessment roll. They pay a flat
fee per acre for administration, maintenance and rehabilitation of the irrigation infrastructure, but do not pay
for the water itself (Nichol, 2005). The license, granting water allocation rights, is owned by the ID, not the
individual irrigators.
The IDs operate independently and the manner in which they carry out their functions varies due to their
differing sizes and physical characteristics (Bjornlund et al., 2006). For example, larger IDs are mandated to
have a larger number of board members. As well, IDs tend to implement different irrigation technologies and
may have different sources of revenue.
Understanding Adaptive Policy Mechanisms Through Farm-level Studies of Adaptation to Weather Events in Alberta
45
6.0 The Alberta Irrigation District Program: An Adaptive Policy
Analysis
Irrigation plays a major role in water management and allocation in Alberta. More than 1.6 million
acres are irrigated in Alberta, representing two-thirds of all irrigation development in Canada
(Alberta Irrigation Information, 2007). Irrigation accounts for 71 per cent of surface water use in
the province, compared with 15 per cent for commercial and industrial use, and 5 per cent for
municipal use (Nichol, 2005). Delivery and use of irrigation water in Alberta is controlled by 13
IDs, all of which are located within the (SSRB). Each district is run by a board of directors that is
elected by farmers owning irrigated land within the district, a structure legislated by the IDA of
2000.
A prime component of the water allocation system in Alberta is that the right to divert and use
water is prioritized under a ―first-in-time, first-in-right‖ principle. In other words, the rights of
―senior‖ license holders (for example, holders of licenses granted earlier in time) trump those of
more ―junior‖ license holders. The IDs hold the majority of the senior licenses in the province,
giving them priority access to available water. As well, the IDs hold licenses accounting for
approximately 75 per cent of the total volume of water allocated in the SSRB (Bjornlund et al.,
2006). The tremendous volume of water under their control, combined with the seniority of their
licenses make the IDs dominant players, both economically and politically, in Alberta‘s water rights
regime (Bankes and Kwasniuk, 2005).
This section will describe and analyze the evolution of irrigation district policy in Alberta using its
largest ID (the SMRID) as the main case study.
Box 6-1: What is an Irrigation District? According to the IDA (2000), an “Irrigation District” is a corporation that operates in a similar manner to a municipality, with a board of directors responsible for managing the affairs of the district. The main responsibilities of the IDs are to deliver water to irrigation farmers and maintain the irrigation infrastructure. Irrigators within the district have their irrigable acres listed on the district’s assessment roll. They pay a flat fee per acre for administration, maintenance and rehabilitation of the irrigation infrastructure, but do not pay for the water itself (Nichol, 2005). The license, granting water allocation rights, is owned by the ID, not the individual irrigators. The IDs operate independently and the manner in which they carry out their functions varies due to their differing sizes and physical characteristics (Bjornlund et al., 2006). For example, larger IDs are mandated to have a larger number of board members. As well, IDs tend to implement different irrigation technologies and may have different sources of revenue.
Understanding Adaptive Policy Mechanisms Through Farm-level Studies of Adaptation to Weather Events in Alberta
46
6.1 Policy Intent
The general purpose of the IDA is ―to provide for the formation, dissolution and governance of
IDs in order that the management and delivery of water in the districts occur in an efficient
manner that provides for the needs of the users" (Section 2). The text of the IDA cites a four-fold
role for IDs:
to convey and deliver water through the irrigation works of the district in accordance with
this Act;
to divert and use quantities of water in accordance with the terms and conditions of its
license under the Water Act;
to construct, operate and maintain the irrigation works of the district; and,
to maintain and promote the economic viability of the district (Section 6).
Bankes and Kwasniuk (2005), argue that the values underlying the IDA are at odds with those of
the Water Act, the other major piece of legislation regulating irrigation water allocation and use.
They claim that the IDA reads more like a public utility statute concerned with fiscal stability, while
the Water Act articulates the public interest in water conservation and broader environmental and
ecological values.
Two main legislative tools govern the role and operations of IDs in Alberta: the Water Act (1999)
and the IDA (2000). Both emerged from a major water law review in the 1990s. At a broad level,
the Water Act defines the licensing requirements and allocations for all water users in the province,
whether they be individuals or large organizations such as IDs. More specifically, this report
focuses on policy emerging from the IDA, which defines the water management responsibilities
and structure of the districts (given the distributed authority provided to them through the Water
Act) (Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, 2004).
6.2 Policy Changes, Drivers and Impacts
Irrigation legislation in Alberta dates back to the Northwest Irrigation Act (NIA) in 1894. Railway
companies had initiated the construction of irrigation projects in Southern Alberta in the 1880s,
hoping to lure settlers to the area (Nichol, 2005). However, when settlers arrived, they brought
with them the doctrine of riparian rights to settle disputes over water allocation. Under this system,
water rights are restricted to those whose property abuts bodies of water (Nichol, 2005) and thus,
large-scale irrigation or development of land away from a water source were not allowed (Percy,
2005). In response to this, ―a substantial political movement began to support the development of
a law of water allocation that was conducive to irrigation‖ (Percy, 2005: 2092).
Understanding Adaptive Policy Mechanisms Through Farm-level Studies of Adaptation to Weather Events in Alberta
47
6.2.1 The Early Years: Pre-1920
William Pearce, a Department of the Interior federal government official in the late 1800s, had a
strong influence on resource development policies in Western Canada during this time, and was
instrumental in the development of the NIA of 1894. He was an enthusiastic supporter of
irrigation development and felt that irrigated agriculture was key to stimulating settlement of the
area. The Act was thus designed to encourage agricultural settlement by providing secure water
rights (Percy, 2005).
The Act established a clear and rigid system of rules based on legislation that was previously
developed for gold fields in California (AIA, 2005). It placed control of water rights in the hands
of the crown, restricted riparian rights and regulated the appropriation of water for all uses (Nichol,
2005). Water could only be acquired according to a licensing system, which stipulated the quantity
of water a licensee could divert and use. Precedence for licenses were determined by the date the
application was filed (Nichol, 2005 citing Percy, 1977), thus beginning an allocation system based
on the ―first-in-time, first-in-right‖ principle.
Nichol (2005) describes the NIA as the ―cornerstone‖ of Alberta‘s water resource allocation
system and contends that it remains the basis of water legislation in Alberta today. Four
fundamental principles underlying Alberta water law have been carried forward from the original
NIA through the entire 20th century (Percy, 2005):
Government ownership – this means that the government can prohibit anyone from
using or diverting water without first obtaining a license.
Allocation of water by license – early licenses granted by the federal government typically
established the right to divert large quantities of water for irrigation purposes. Many of the
licenses held by the IDs date back to the late 1800s. These licenses were usually granted
without a fixed term and were treated as permanent in nature. They could only be cancelled
if the licensee committed an offense as specified in the Act.
Prior allocation principle – the senior licensee is entitled to receive the entire allotment of
water stipulated in the license before a junior licensee is entitled to receive any water.
Priority of license depends on date of application.
Nontransferability – water allocations were nontransferable, except if the land was sold
(the license ownership transferred with the land). In 1894 Act, this rule was implicit as
every license was required to incorporate a particular source of supply and point of
diversion. Alberta made this rule explicit in the Water Resources Act (WRA) of 1930, stating
that the licenses were inseparable from the land.
What Percy (2005) calls a ―fatal flaw‖ of the 1894 Act was recognized early on in Southern Alberta.
Understanding Adaptive Policy Mechanisms Through Farm-level Studies of Adaptation to Weather Events in Alberta
48
The policy of handing out secure long-term water licenses combined with the prohibition of their
transfer meant that water supplies would quickly become fully allocated. In 1920, a House of
Commons debate highlighted the fact that granting large licences for irrigation might pre-empt
water supplies required for new and expanding municipalities (Percy, 2005).
Government policy during this time consisted of conducting land and water surveys to determine
feasibility of potential irrigation developments (IWMSC, 2002). Actual development of irrigation
infrastructures was left to private companies that held the expectation that the projects would
increase productivity and land values enough to recoup the construction and operation costs and
provide a return on investment.
These expectations were too high, however, and returns were quite discouraging. Funds collected
from irrigation users were not enough to cover the costs. Land sales were slow, and the
administration of irrigation projects was a burden due to the high number of individual contractors
and difficulty in collecting water rates (IWMSC, 2002). In response to this, the province passed the
IDA in 1914. The legislation eased the burden to water suppliers by simplifying administration, and
also provided a mechanism to allow farmers to organize themselves into local districts, which could
then issue guaranteed bonds for the development of irrigation projects (Nichol, 2005). The districts
were also given authority to levy taxes for the operation and maintenance of the irrigation projects
and to deal with the day-to-day administration of the system [Alberta Agriculture Food and Rural
Development (AAFRD), 2000]. The first farmer-owned, financed and operated ID established
under this Act was the Taber Irrigation District in 1917.
6.2.2 The Adjustment Years (1920 to 1950)
Even with the creation of IDs reducing some of the administrative burden, the economics of
irrigation farming remained problematic during the 1920s (Nichol, 2005). Many farmers could not
afford to pay the assessed rates, and some projects continued to operate only by cash infusions
from the founding companies or the federal or provincial governments (IWMSC, 2002). The
province established several commissions to address the issues being faced by the irrigation sector.
Reform measures from the commissions included:
relieving irrigation water users from capital works debt by having corporate entities and
governments shoulder large portions of capital costs;
greater government financial responsibility, recognizing that benefits of irrigation go
beyond the farm gate;
encouraging higher value crops; and
creating payment schedules more in keeping with the farmer‘s ability to pay (IWMSC,
2002).
Understanding Adaptive Policy Mechanisms Through Farm-level Studies of Adaptation to Weather Events in Alberta
49
In 1930, control of natural resources (including water resources) was transferred from the federal
government to the provinces under the Natural Resources Transfer Agreement (Percy, 2005). The
following year, the Alberta government passed the WRA (1931), which re-enacted the same model
of water allocation law outlined in the original NIA. The legislation made explicit that water
transfers were prohibited–water licenses were attached to the land and ownership would only be
transferred through the sale of the land (Percy, 2005).
By 1950, the shift from corporate irrigation enterprises to farmer-run IDs was complete. Eleven of
the 13 current IDs had been formed, and farmer-run organizations were seen as the most durable
and effective administrative bodies for irrigation projects (IWMSC, 2002). The Alberta Irrigation
Projects Association was established in 1946, creating a single voice for the IDs in dealing with
government and other stakeholders.
6.2.3 Rehabilitation and Expansion of the Delivery Systems (1950 to 1970)
During this stage of irrigation development, there was direct involvement of federal and provincial
governments in large irrigation infrastructure projects (IWMSC, 2002). The creation of the Prairie
Farm Rehabilitation Administration (PFRA)–an arm of Agriculture Canada–in 1935 set in motion
federal government involvement in rehabilitation by funding critical irrigation infrastructure
projects By the 1950s, the PFRA had become a major player in both rehabilitation and expansion
projects (Nichol, 2005). The goal of these investments was to stabilize and expand irrigated
agriculture in Southern Alberta. Further incentive for major funding came from the need to resettle
drought-stricken farmers and returning war veterans (IWMSC, 2002).
In 1968, the Irrigation Act was introduced. This act granted water licenses to IDs and provided
uniform rules and administrative authorities for them. Each district was to be run by a board of
directors (a structure still in place today) that would regulate the supply and distribution of water to
users within the district. In 1969, the provincial government initiated a cost-sharing rehabilitation
program, with the province providing 86 per cent and the districts 14 per cent of the funds. The
program was extended in 1975 and several more times after 1980, and is still in place today as the
IRP. The funding ratio is now 75 per cent from the province and 25 per cent from the districts.
By 1970, the federal and provincial governments had been involved in rehabilitation and expansion
projects in almost all of the 13 IDs (IWMSC, 2002). The extensive support of the two levels of
government between 1950 and 1970 helped give irrigation farmers confidence that their water
supplies would not be suddenly cut off due to infrastructure failures or bankruptcy of the operating
agency, events many had experienced in the past (IWMSC, 2002).
Understanding Adaptive Policy Mechanisms Through Farm-level Studies of Adaptation to Weather Events in Alberta
50
6.2.4 Provincial and Irrigation District Control (1970 to 1990)
IDs- experienced tremendous growth during the 1970s, with the area on the assessment rolls
increasing by 50 per cent (from 280,000 to 420,000). This was due in large part to the increased use
of sprinkler irrigation (especially centre-pivot sprinklers) which reduced irrigation manpower
requirements and increased the area that could be supplied with water from the distribution
network. Also during this time, the province took more control of the irrigation infrastructure. In
1973, the federal government signed an agreement with the province to withdraw from hands-on
management of irrigation projects in the St. Mary River and Bow River developments. In 1975, the
provincial government announced that Alberta Environment would assume responsibility for
rehabilitation, operation and maintenance of the major irrigation headworks (the infrastructure
required to divert water from its sources and convey it to districts). The objective of moving to
provincial ownership was to maintain a secure and continuous supply of water for the districts and
all other uses, and to operate the projects for multi-purpose use (IWMSC, 2002). Since that time,
the Alberta government has been primarily responsible for planning, managing and constructing
irrigation infrastructure, although the costs of many projects continue to be shared between the
provincial government and the IDs (Johnston et al., 2001).
Revisions to the WRA in 1975 gave irrigation water use priority over industrial, power or
recreational use, third in water allocation behind domestic and municipal use (Nichol, 2005).
During the 1970s and 1980s, critics voiced concerns about the inflexibility of the province‘s water
allocation policies (Nichol, 2005). Percy, 1977 argued that the appropriation system would
maximize benefits of water use only by ―sheer coincidence‖ (p. 163) and that it ―fails to permit the
transfer of a water rights where a new, more highly valued use must be carried on at a different
location on the stream‖ (p. 164) (quoted in Nichol, 2005). Further, Percy (1977) claimed that the
Act did not provide an adequate framework to deal with changing patterns of water use or with the
competition for water among many different uses that were likely to occur in the future. Veeman,
1985 advocated transferable water rights to add flexibility to the system and encourage economic
growth. In 1991, the government initiated a broad review of its water management policies,
culminating in the passage of the Water Act (1999) and the IDA (2000) (discussed below).
The rapid expansion of irrigation during the 1970s coincided with increasing public and
stakeholder concerns about environmental issues (IWMSC, 2002). At the same time, irrigation
water supply shortages in the SSRB became more frequent. As a response, Alberta Environment
initiated a review process in 1984 to examine water management issues in the SSRB. The Alberta
Water Resources Commission held public hearings and produced a report of recommendations
(1986). The SSRB Water Management Policy was announced in 1990 and provided guidelines
related to irrigation expansions, multi-purpose use of water, priority uses and minimum and
preferred in-stream flows, water conservation and public consultation.
Understanding Adaptive Policy Mechanisms Through Farm-level Studies of Adaptation to Weather Events in Alberta
51
Specifically, the policy called for the establishment of the maximum amounts of water that could
be allocated for irrigation expansion, resulting in the South Saskatchewan Basin Water Allocation
Regulation, passed in 1991. Under this regulation, the IDs could expand beyond their area limits if
improvements in efficiencies and reduced return flows allow expansion within their respective
licensed volumes (IWMSC, 2002). The SMRID has not held a plebiscite with its irrigators to
expand the number of acres irrigated (personal communication with AAFRD representative). The
government committed to reviewing the Regulation in the year 2000, resulting in Alberta
Environment issuing an ―Approved Water Management Plan for the South Saskatchewan River
Basin‖ in August 2006. This plan supersedes the 1991 regulation and recommends it be repealed.
The plan says that the IDA (2000) governs potential acreage expansions within the IDs within their
existing allocations.
6.2.5 Major Water Law Reforms (1990-present)
By the early 1990s, increasing concerns over water shortages, more focus on environmental
implications of water use, and frustration with the inflexibility of licence transfers highlighted the
need to reform the 1931 WRA. Bankes, 1995 writes that ―the WRA and its predecessor statutes
were designed to meet the needs of a frontier community, not the needs of a post-industrial
conserver society‖ (p. 2). In other words, the basic model of water law was not designed to deal
with water scarcity:
―Legislation had essentially granted secure water licenses of indefinite duration that were free of
charge, once a modest initial application fee had been paid, and not readily transferable, except
with the land or undertaking to which they were attached. The system created no incentives for the
efficient use of water and could allow water use to adapt in the face of changing societal needs only
in the most cumbersome manner‖ (Percy, 2005).
In response, provincial policymakers started to shift their emphasis from managing water supply (for
example, building dams and finding more water sources to tap) to managing water demands (for
example, adjusting land use practices and water conservation techniques) in the context of potential
water shortages (Johnston et al., 2001). A major reform of water law during the 1990s resulted in
the passages of the Water Act (1999) and the IDA (2000), which together replaced the 1931 WRA.
The IDA will be discussed in the next section, the focus here is on the Water Act.
The new Water Act has a much broader mandate than the previous WRA (Nichol, 2005). The
purpose of the Act is ―to support and promote the conservation and management of water‖ while
recognizing the need for environmental sustainability and economic growth (Section 2). Reforms
appearing in the new Water Act that have bearing for IDs include the following:
Understanding Adaptive Policy Mechanisms Through Farm-level Studies of Adaptation to Weather Events in Alberta
52
Enabling water licence transfers – previously, licenses were attached to the land and
could not be transferred separately from the land. The Water Act (Sections 81 and 82)
allows licenses to be transferred to different parcels of land for existing or alternative uses
(Rush et al., 2004). Transferable water allocations were controversial during the reform
consultation process with the result that a political safeguard was built into the Act. Any
transfer must be authorized in an approved water management plan (for the SMRID, this is
the SSRB Water Management Plan) or by an Order-in-Council. As water management
plans are also approved by Cabinet, the Act ensures strong political oversight will guide any
transfer decisions (Percy, 2005). The intent of the policy is that applications for transfers be
adjudicated in the same way as new licenses (for example, they should bring no harm, no
impairment to other users and not exceed the amount of water allocated in the original
license). Percy (2005) says, in addition, transfers must not cause adverse effect on aquatic
environment. Percy (2005) contends that the transfer provision adds an element of
flexibility in water allocation:
―It creates a practical and workable method for accommodating new users, and it provides
an incentive for all water users to reduce wasteful use by allowing the marginal value of
their water to be recognized. The Act also encourages the many changes in water use that
can occur without raising serious issues of water policy.‖ (p. 2102).
Appointment of regional directors – regional directors, appointed by Alberta
Environment, perform a variety of duties, including issuance, amendment, suspension and
cancellation of registrations, approvals and licenses (Sections 38, 42, 51, 55) (Rush et al.,
2004). The directors have discretionary power to issue water management orders, prioritize
water use in areas where there is a dispute and to issue licence transfers.
Water conservation holdback – the Act allows regional directors to hold back up to 10
per cent of a license transfer to protect aquatic environments and facilitate implementation
of water conservation objectives (Section 83) (Rush et al., 2004).
Integration of environmental concerns into licensing decisions – older legislation was
broad enough to permit environmental factors to be considered in allocation decisions, but
in practice, administrators focused more on the impact of a licence application on other
water users than on the broader environmental implications (Percy, 2005). The new Act
specifically integrates evaluations of licence applications with provincial environmental
protection and assessment regimes. Transfer applicants are required to provide public
notice of an application and any person who feels ―directly affected‖ by the application can
submit a statement of concern to the regional director, and ultimately bring an appeal to
the Environmental Appeal Board if the director decides to issue the licence (Percy, 2005).
Bankes and Kwasniuk (2005), argue that the Water Act strengthens the IDs‘ control of water
resources. First of all, the Act maintains the ―first-in-time, first-in-right‖ principle of allocation. An
Understanding Adaptive Policy Mechanisms Through Farm-level Studies of Adaptation to Weather Events in Alberta
53
Alberta Institute of Agrologists report (2005) contends that politicians gave clear direction to
drafting committee that first-in-time rights were to be respected and were not up for debate (AIA,
2005). Secondly, the Act accords an ―extraordinary degree of protection upon those water rights
that predate the new Act‖ (Bankes and Kwasniuk, 2005: 7). The Act recognizes licences issued
under predecessor Acts and protects their original priorities, terms and conditions (IWMSC, 2002).
For example, licences issued under the Water Act have expiry dates, while licenses that predate the
Act (such as those held by IDs) were typically issued in perpetuity. As well, directors may suspend
licenses that have an adverse effect on the aquatic environment only if the licenses were issued
after the Act came into effect (older licenses are exempt).
A final document related to irrigation policy development is the provincial government‘s Water for
Life Strategy (published in 2003), which outlines the basic foundation for a water management plan
for the next decade. The Strategy is based on attaining three key goals: a safe, secure drinking water
supply; healthy aquatic ecosystems; and reliable, quality water supplies for a sustainable economy.
As with all previous water policies, the Strategy reiterates the ―first-in-time, first-in-right‖ allocation
principle (AIA, 2005). It also calls for adopting a watershed approach to management and decision-
making. Local Watershed Planning and Advisory Councils were to be created to aid in setting
priorities for water management. The councils are intended to act as a liaison between provincial-
level committees and local governments in the watershed. However, they do not have any
regulatory power (Rush et al., 2004). Other highlights of the strategy include:
increasing efficiency and productivity of water by 30 per cent by 2015;
establishing a multi-stakeholder advisory council to guide implementation of the strategy;
implementing broad-based water conservation activities; and
monitoring water allocation transfers within each river basin.
6.3 Details of Policy Design and Implementation
The Alberta government‘s reform of water law in the 1990s included a review of irrigation
legislation. The review was conducted in response to issues raised by IDs, irrigation farmers and
other stakeholders. A key issue raised was the need for greater autonomy for IDs so that they could
manage their affairs in an ―effective manner‖ (Bankes and Kwasniuk, 2005). The new IDA
maintained the governance structure from previous Acts, but also introduced changes to water
transfer provisions that have strengthened ID control of water resources and increased the rights
of derivative users (irrigators within the IDs).
6.3.1 Governance Structure
Part two of the IDA outlines the governance structure for the IDs. The Act is administered by
AAFRD, as compared with the Water Act, that is administered by Alberta Environment.
Understanding Adaptive Policy Mechanisms Through Farm-level Studies of Adaptation to Weather Events in Alberta
54
The Act establishes each of the 13 IDs as corporations. It further mandates that each ID must be
run by a board of directors. The Minister appoints the first board. The number of members on the
board is determined by the size of the ID. For example, because the SMRID has greater than
200,000 assessment acres, its board must have seven members. A person is eligible to serve on the
board if he/she is an irrigator within the ID (except in rare circumstances). Each ID must also
appoint a manager. In the SMRID, the organizational structure is such that a general manager
oversees staff in the areas of administration, engineering, and operations and maintenance.
The IDA also maintains an Irrigation Council from previous legislation. The council is made up of
not more than seven members, each appointed by the Minister. The role of the council is to
monitor the operation and financial performance of the district. The government has signed
agreements with each district to cost-share rehabilitation projects within the districts (the IRP). The
Council must grant approval before a district makes an expenditure under the IRP. An irrigation
secretariat assists the council in fulfilling its functions.
The ID is also mandated to pass rate bylaws each year, encompassing fees for administration,
maintenance and some rehabilitation of the irrigation infrastructure. Irrigators that have their
irrigable acres on the assessment roll constitute the ID‘s ratepayers. The assessment roll includes a
list of all parcels of land that contain irrigation acres and for each parcel lists the legal description
of the land, the name of the owner, the number of irrigation acres. The fees are charged on a per
acre basis. The ID may pass other bylaws (for example, governing the maximum amount of water
that may be delivered by the district to each acre or governing how the water is delivered and
distributed to users).
6.3.2 Changes under the New IDA
Bankes and Kwasniuk (2005) argue that the most recent law reforms give more control of water
allocation to the IDs and also more rights to derivative users (users that do not hold licenses
themselves, but have rights to obtain water from a licensee). Irrigation farmers within IDs are
considered derivative users. Major changes under the new Act include the following (see Bankes
and Kwasniuk, 2005 for a detailed interpretation of the changes):
Permanent license transfers – formal licence transfers are governed by the Water Act (as
described above) with further stipulations outlined in the IDA. For example, the ID must
hold a public meeting announcing the transfer and must hold a plebiscite to gain approval
of irrigators in the district. If more than 50 per cent of irrigators vote in favour of the
transfer, the application will go forward to Alberta Environment.
Temporary license transfers – irrigators have always been able to transfer water
allocations among their own parcels of land (Nichol, 2005). However, Bankes and
Kwasniuk (2005) note that under the IDA (Section 25), the transfer requires only the
Understanding Adaptive Policy Mechanisms Through Farm-level Studies of Adaptation to Weather Events in Alberta
55
approval of the ID, whereas under the Water Act and predecessor legislation, it would
require a formal licence transfer process.
o Under Section 26, an irrigator may transfer water entitlements to another parcel of
land not owned by the irrigator (as long as the land is eligible to be served by the
ID). Such a transfer was not possible under the WRA and is only possible within
the Water Act as part of a formal transfer. Importantly, under the Water Act, this
transfer would be subject to the 10 per cent conservation holdback provision and
an assessment of the effects on the aquatic environment. Under the IDA, these
rules do not apply, making the process much simpler to complete.
Rural use agreements – a 2002 amendment to the IDA (Section 19) allows an ID to enter
into a rural use agreement that allows district water to be used for purposes other than
irrigation. Before, the water user would have needed to obtain a license under the Water Act
(or WRA) to use water for non-irrigation purposes. With the moratorium on granting new
licenses in the SSRB, it is unlikely that the user would be successful in obtaining a license
under the Water Act, so this is a significant amendment.
Bankes and Kwasniuk (2005) conclude that the IDA and related amendments increase the
authority of the IDs to allocate and reallocate water within the districts. With the option of
obtaining a license under the Water Act or using the provisions of the IDA, it is expected
that IDs will choose the latter route. It avoids the 10 per cent conservation holdback,
avoids triggering a review by the regional director (and potentially the Environmental
Appeal Board), and minimizes transaction costs. There is further economic incentive in
that by amending licenses under the IDA and not transferring them under the Water Act,
the ID maintains control over the entire licensed amount and will earn income from the
annual water fees.
6.4 Identification and Analysis of Adaptive Policy Mechanisms Mechanisms of adaptive policies observed in the ID program are summarized below. The analytical
framework used in this section follows that outlined in Section 2.3.
6.4.1 Automatic Adjustment
There are a number of policies and programs emerging from the IDA that demonstrate an
automatic adjustment mechanism by anticipating a range of socio-economic and environmental
conditions.
IRP
The IRP began in 1969 and is a cost-shared program between the AAFRD and the 13 IDs,
renewed through annual agreements between the province and each district. The aim of the
program is to rehabilitate water conveyance and storage infrastructures. Currently, the cost-share
ratio has 75 per cent of the funds coming from the province and 25 per cent from the ID. Funding
Understanding Adaptive Policy Mechanisms Through Farm-level Studies of Adaptation to Weather Events in Alberta
56
levels have ranged from $600,000 to $32M over the life of the program. The SMRID received
$5.9M in grants from the provincial government in 2006.
The automatic adjustment mechanism in the policy is in the inter-district funding formula. Half of
the money is allocated on the basis of the number of irrigation acres in each district, and the other
half is distributed on the basis of the infrastructure replacement cost of specified infrastructure in
each district. Each of these two values will shift within and between IDs from year to year, and
thus the policy is able to adjust for changing needs annually.
6.4.2 Integrated Assessment
2001 Water Sharing Agreement
The SMRID played a leadership role in establishing the WSA between IDs, municipalities and
industrial water users during the drought year of 2001. The WSA will be discussed in detail under
the section on Self-Organization and Networking, but one component of building the agreement
provides an example of an integrated assessment policy mechanism.
Representatives from Alberta Environment and AAFRD formed a technical advisory committee to
the IDs and other groups negotiating the sharing agreement. Though not voting members, they
attended all meetings to provide information about how priority might be implemented under a
variety of water supply scenarios and about laws and policies (Rush et al., 2004). Through monthly
planning sessions, water supply forecasts and water rationing strategies for irrigation and non-
irrigation users were formulated. The Irrigation Branch of AAFRD then worked with the IDs and
Alberta Environment, to calculate estimates of the volume of water that would be available, and
were also able to calculate values for each farmer using individual on-farm irrigation system data
(personal communication with AAFRD representative).
6.4.3 Multi-perspective Deliberation
SSRB Water Management Policy
Predictions of water shortages led the provincial government to develop a policy establishing
guidelines for irrigation expansion within the IDs (IWMSC, 2002). The SSRB Water Management
Policy was released in 1990, and is an example of a multi-perspective deliberation policy
mechanism. The guidelines were created through a multi-stakeholder process that considered the
following inputs:
the Alberta Water Resources Commission recommendations on the location and
magnitude of irrigation expansion (which itself was the result of extensive public
consultation);
consultations with the Irrigation Council, representatives of IDs, and existing and potential
Understanding Adaptive Policy Mechanisms Through Farm-level Studies of Adaptation to Weather Events in Alberta
57
irrigation farmers; and
discussions with Members of the Legislative Assembly.
Ultimately, the guidelines appear in the South Saskatchewan Basin Water Allocation Regulation
(1991) and established the maximum amounts of water that can be allocated for irrigation.
Water Transfer
As described in the previous section, permanent water license transfers are governed by the Water
Act, with further rules given in the IDA if the transfer involves an ID. The ID is required to hold a
public meeting discussing the potential transfer and must hold a plebiscite to gain the approval of
at least 50 per cent of the irrigators in the district before the transfer application will go forward to
Alberta Environment.
2001 Water Sharing Agreement
The WSA is a good example of multi-perspective deliberation. It brought together a diverse group
of stakeholders (ID members, residents from cities and towns, recreational water users and
industrial water users) who were able to reach consensus regarding how to equitably share the
available water during a drought year. As well, the use of experts from Alberta Environment and
AAFRD as a technical advisory committee added another perspective and another level of
deliberation.
6.4.4 Self-organization and Social Networking
2001 Water Sharing Agreement
A prime example of social networking and self-organization in policy building occurred in 2001.
Southern Alberta was hit by unprecedented drought conditions in 2000 and 2001, presenting a
major challenge to all farmers in the region. The winter of 1999-2000 saw below normal snowpack
in the Rocky Mountains (the source of fresh water for irrigation). This was followed by below-
normal precipitation in 2000, leading to low reservoir storage levels in the fall of 2000. Anticipating
more water shortages for 2001, ID officials from the ―Southern Tribs‖ (districts supplied by water
from the three main tributaries that supply the Oldman River from the south–the Waterton, Belly
and St. Mary Rivers) convened a multi-agency coordinating committee to construct and implement
a mitigation and preparedness plan in case the conditions did not improve by the start of the 2001
irrigation season.
Originally, the group was the SMRID Main Canal Advisory Committee made up of managers from
the St. Mary River, Taber and Raymond IDs. This committee was already in existence, meeting
regularly to discuss the operation of their common irrigation canal (the ―main canal‖ in the
committee title) (Milk River Watershed News, 2002). These three districts represent approximately
80 per cent of the irrigation area in the Southern Tribs.
Understanding Adaptive Policy Mechanisms Through Farm-level Studies of Adaptation to Weather Events in Alberta
58
In November 2000, other stakeholders were invited to the table. The committee was first expanded
to add the four other IDs in the area (Magrath, United, Aetna and Leavitt districts), and then in the
spring of 2001, other affected water users were invited to join the water-sharing group. These
included municipal water users (towns and villages such as Coaldale, Grassy Lake, Bow Island,
Cardston, Magrath, Raymon, Taber, Barnwell, Burdett, Foremost, Hillspring, Stirling and Warner),
commercial and industrial water users (for example, Rogers Sugar, Old Dutch Potato Chips, Lamb-
Weston, Husky Oil and Shell), and recreation users (such as golf courses). Owners of private water
licenses joined together to form the Southern Water Users Association, and also became part of
the discussions.
The IDs proposed a water-sharing arrangement to allow all licence holders to receive an equitable
portion of whatever water would become available. The water sharing agreement put aside the
‖first-in-time, first-in-right‖ doctrine that underpins the Alberta irrigation regulation and instead
implemented an equal sharing of water regardless of the dates on the licenses. This prevented
senior licence holders from diverting their full rations of water and leaving none for junior holders.
However, power differentials between the IDs and other members of the water-sharing group are
significant. Because the province has maintained the ―first-in-time, first-in-right‖ approach to water
rights, owners of higher-priority licenses are still able to take priority rather than their share. The
IDs thus hold ultimate decision-making power, making them critical players in any future water-
sharing agreements (Rush et al, 2004).
Emergency Preparedness
The SMRID has been instrumental in developing networks in the region to work together to
construct emergency preparedness plans. In conjunction with other IDs, affected towns and
villages, water coops and others, the SMRID began developing a disaster communication plan after
an extreme rainfall event in 1995. The dry season of 2001 extended the plan to include responses
to both drought and flooding, and more extreme rains in 2002 and 2005 began to test the various
components of the plan. An SMRID board member believes that ―we now have a much better idea
what can happen, and we‘re much more prepared for it‖ (personal communication). For example,
in preparation for an extreme rainfall event, SMRID staff is prohibited from taking holidays
between June 1 and June 15. All staff members are available in case of an emergency. The plan also
calls for the SMRID to hire vehicles, backhoes, pumps, trucks and whatever else might be needed
to help drain flooded areas. Similarly, a long-term emergency plan is in place for drought, and ―if
we get to a situation where it looks like we‘re going to need to ration, [the SMRID is] prepared to
put the plan into action‖ (SMRID board member, personal communication). The SMRID plan is
also co-ordinated with similar emergency response plans in the Town of Coaldale, the City of
Lethbridge, and the County of Lethbridge. This plan has now been established as SMRID policy.
Understanding Adaptive Policy Mechanisms Through Farm-level Studies of Adaptation to Weather Events in Alberta
59
Water Markets
Changes to the Water Act (1999) and the IDA (2000) have allowed temporary and permanent
transfer of water rights in Alberta. By allowing water rights to be tradable, the province has
transformed ―historical licenses into marketable commodities‖ (Horbulyk and Lo, 1998: 245) in
Nichol (2005), ultimately providing flexibility in what had become an intractable water allocation
situation. Firstly, the province had instituted moratoriums in the major river basins, meaning there
was no further water to allocate to new users. At the same time, the province continued to
perpetuate the ―first-in-time, first-in-right‖ principle of water rights, meaning that the IDs
maintained control of the vast majority of water resources through senior licenses (without an
expiry date). Finally, because stakeholders in the province were resistant to the implementation of
water metering, a water-pricing regime was not a possible policy solution.
The transfer provisions in the Water Act and the IDA have created an economic instrument–water
markets–that display the characteristics of self-organization in both the informal and formal
markets that have emerged.
Informal Markets.
In the SMRID, water rationing in 2001 precipitated the creation of an informal market for trading
water allocations. Section 26 of the IDA allows irrigators to temporarily transfer water allocations
to other irrigators in the district. Following the Act, the SMRID defined rules for the transfer
process (Nichol, 2005). For example, owners of the parcels of land were required to sign a 2001
Water Allocation Transfer form (at the SMRID offices). Transfers were temporary, not subject to
any fees and could take place at any time during the irrigation season. Under special circumstances,
transfers could take place between users in the SMRID, the Raymond Irrigation District (RID), and
the Taber Irrigation District (TID). At the time, the SMRID, RID and TID were involved in the
development of a communal water- sharing agreement to deal with the water shortage.
The SMRID experienced more market activity than other IDs in 2001, with 222 water transactions
registered during the irrigation season. Nichol (2005) found there were 151 unique buyers and 114
unique sellers (representing about 12 per cent of irrigators in the district). Approximately 1,500
farmers in the SMRID did not participate in market activity.
Nichol (2005) found that the majority of buyers and sellers found each other through word of
mouth, though some buyers found sellers hard to locate. The SMRID now maintains a list of
potential buyers and sellers on its website. As the summer wore on and the drought intensified, the
rate of transactions increased. Transfers tended to shift water use to higher-value crops such as
potatoes and sugar beets. An advantage of temporary, short-term water leases is that buyers
purchase water on an as-needed basis, avoiding unnecessary costs when precipitation levels are
Understanding Adaptive Policy Mechanisms Through Farm-level Studies of Adaptation to Weather Events in Alberta
60
high. Nichol (2005) found that prices did not decline with increasing volumes of water purchased,
indicating that those users requiring large amounts of water paid a premium. The largest volumes
purchased were for potato and specialty crop production and averaged $89 per acre-foot. Smaller
volumes purchased for lower-valued crops, like cereals and oilseeds, averaged $69 per acre-foot.
Formal Markets
Sections 81 and 82 of the Water Act define the legal process for permanent transfers of water
licences. Very limited activity has taken place in the formal market of trading permanent water
rights. Horbulyk (2007) reports that less than 10 permanent transfers had been authorized by early
2006. License purchases are limited to those who already have a license, keeping many who would
buy rights for non-consumptive uses (for example, maintaining in-stream flows) out of the market,
though one can become eligible by buying land with an attached license. Nichol (2005) explored six
case studies of permanent transfers, finding that participants incurred considerable expense to set
up new systems and protocols for those that might follow.
Alberta‘s water markets do not yet feature prominent ―water banks,‖ ―trading exchanges‖ or other
marketplace infrastructure. However, anecdotal evidence suggests that a number of individuals
within the irrigation industry are willing to act as market intermediaries–one private sector
electronic trading exchange is ready to commence once there is a viable market. Rush et al. (2004)
suggest that IDs are not interested in permanent transfers that would leave the district, but might
accept long-term leases to certain industries.
6.4.5 Formal Review and Continuous Learning
SSRB Water Management Planning
In creating the South Saskatchewan Basin Water Allocation Regulation (1991), the provincial
government demonstrated the use of a formal review policy mechanism. The regulation set the
maximum amount of water that can be allocated for irrigation in each ID (the limit for the SMRID
was 150,000 hectares). However, the maximum allocations were recognized as approximations
based on partial scientific knowledge. The government, therefore, committed to reviewing the
regulation in 2000 because of the ―limitations of the databases and estimates of current and future
water uses‖ (IWMSC, 2002: 21). As a result, Alberta Environment issued an ―Approved Water
Management Plan for the South Saskatchewan River Basin‖ in August 2006.
2001 Water Sharing Agreement
During the 2001 drought year, mechanisms were developed to monitor and equitably distribute
whatever amount of water would become available. Early predictions suggested six inches per
irrigated acre, but this increased to eight inches in May and finally to 10 inches in early June. The
Irrigation Branch of the Alberta government (within AAFRD) along with the ID, calculated for
each farmer how many days of irrigation he/she was entitled to, taking into account factors such as
Understanding Adaptive Policy Mechanisms Through Farm-level Studies of Adaptation to Weather Events in Alberta
61
the total area irrigated and the method of irrigation used. The IDs have been commended for their
work in creating an equitable water management strategy by the International Irrigation
Association, the provincial and federal governments, the U.S. government and the World
Committee on Irrigation and Drainage.
Conservation Holdback
The Water Act has integrated a formal review mechanism within the licence-transfer process
through the introduction of a conservation holdback provision. The transfer application process
triggers an environmental review by the regional director, giving him/her discretion to hold back
up to 10 per cent of the water allocation being transferred to meet the government‘s conservation
objectives and protect aquatic environments. However, the holdback provision is modest and
unlikely to restore large quantities of water to a river system (Percy, 2005)–Alberta Environment
has admitted that this holdback provision, in addition to any license cancellations, will not produce
significant environmental benefits (Nichol, 2005).
6.4.6 Subsidiarity
Irrigation Districts Act
The IDA stipulates that each ID is its own private corporation. Because of this, each district
operates independently and how it carries out its functions can vary due to differing sizes and
physical characteristics (Bjornlund et al., 2006). At the discretion of the board, each district charges
a flat fee per acre to cover administration and maintenance of the irrigation system. For example,
the fee varied from $8.25 in the United Irrigation District to $18.50 in the SMRID (the Eastern
Irrigation District chose to waive the irrigation rate in recognition of the economic impacts of the
BSE crisis) (Alberta Agriculture and Food, 2007). The large variance in rates is the result of
differing irrigation technologies (piped versus pressurized water supply) and whether the districts
have alternate sources of funding (Bjornlund et al., 2006).
Water transfer provisions in the IDA and Water Act also promote variation in solutions for water
allocation issues. Transfers may be temporary leases or permanent licence transfers.
The Water Act allows for regional differences to be accounted for in calling for the creation of
regional water management plans (for example, the SSRB Water Management Plan). Local and
regional public consultation are a key component of developing these plans, providing another
opportunity to incorporate unique, local solutions to water management issues (Alberta Water Act
Fact Sheets).
Water for Life Strategy
Rush et al. (2004) describe the watershed as an optimal unit for water management and planning
because it‘s a complete hydrologic unit and therefore an appropriate scale for looking at
sustainability. The Alberta Water for Life Strategy called for the establishment of Local Watershed
Understanding Adaptive Policy Mechanisms Through Farm-level Studies of Adaptation to Weather Events in Alberta
62
Planning and Advisory Councils to act as a liaison between the province and local governments
within the watershed. The SMRID is located in the Oldman Watershed and is a member of the
Oldman Watershed Planning and Advisory Council. This committee was active in providing
recommendations to the South Saskatchewan River Basin Water Management Plan, published in
2006 and is still currently an active group. Its mission is ―To maintain and improve the Oldman
River Watershed through partnerships, knowledge and the implementation and integration of
sustainable watershed management and land use practices‖ (for more details, visit the Oldman
Watershed Council website at: http://www.oldmanbasin.org/what_council.html).
Water Act
Under the Water Act, directors are appointed by Alberta Environment at a regional level to issue,
amend, suspend or cancel water licenses.
Understanding Adaptive Policy Mechanisms Through Farm-level Studies of Adaptation to Weather Events in Alberta
63
7.0 Conclusions
The Alberta case study focused on two coping and adaptation measures to respond to climatic
stresses on the prairies–income stabilization and irrigation planning and management. In this
section, we address two high-level questions relevant to this research project:
1. Do public policies that build the capacity of communities to cope with surprise and change
have adaptive features?
2. What adaptive features enable policies to remain effective?
7.1 Do Public Policies that Build the Capacity of Communities to Cope with
Surprise and Change have Adaptive Features?
This case study analyzed a series of policies linked with income stabilization in the CAIS program,
and irrigation planning and management through the Alberta Irrigation District (AID) program.
For the AID, the presence of a provincial program implemented at a district level to provide
irrigation infrastructure and operational and management capacity for this infrastructure (and the
water resource it distributes), serves as a short-term coping and long-term adaptation measure for
farmers in southern Alberta. An analysis of the IDA and the AID program revealed several
examples across the range of adaptive policy mechanisms. From these observations, it would
appear that in this case, public policies that build the capacity of communities to cope with surprise
and change do have adaptive features.
But does this program help reduce the vulnerability and increase the resilience of the farmers in
this region? In seeing vulnerability as a function of exposure to stress and the ability to adapt to
stress, the answer to this question is not clear cut. While it is certainly the case that adaptive
capacity is increased through irrigation and irrigation management, the practice of irrigation in
general serves to maintain exposure to a region that is prone to drought and insufficient average
precipitation necessary for profitable agriculture production. Relative to an area that produces
similar crops in the same climatic region, the area with irrigation can be said to be less vulnerable.
And assuming that the exposure in the region to the climate stress (for example, drought) does not
increase in the future, irrigation can reduce overall vulnerability. But if the exposure does increase
in the future, as might be the case with climate change, vulnerability might remain either the same
or increase as a result.
From the perspective of long-term resilience of the agro-ecosystem the AID program displays
many of the features which Berkes et al., 2001 cite as helping to build community resilience. These
Understanding Adaptive Policy Mechanisms Through Farm-level Studies of Adaptation to Weather Events in Alberta
64
features are summarized in Table 7-1 and include learning to live with change and uncertainty,
nurturing diversity, combining different kinds of knowledge and creating opportunity for self-
organization. From the list of resilience factors in the table, we can see that the AID program
exhibits many factors in each of the categories. From the creation of emergency preparedness
plans, water sharing agreements and water-conservation practices, the AID program has
demonstrated that farmers are learning to live with uncertainty and change, and this has certainly
created opportunity for self-organization. In times of climatic stresses, some IDs have opted not to
expand their irrigated land to conserve their water resource to help them deal with future climate
stress. The only factor that might be in question is does irrigation, however well managed, nurture
ecological memory? The practice of irrigation, by its inherent function, is masking the ecological
feedback from the climate system. Taking the thought experiment to the extreme–drought of such
length that the water resource is depleted–if the AID program has been successful in promoting
self-organization and building the rapid feedback capacity to respond to environmental change, the
program could evolve into some other useful purpose aside from managing water for irrigation.
Table 7-1. Clusters of Factors for Building Resilience from the Local Perspective in Lagoon Social-ecological Systems (from Berkes and Seixas (2005) – categories based on Folke et al. (2003).
Resilience Clusters Resilience Factors
Learning to live with change and uncertainty.
Learning from crises.
Building rapid feedback capacity to respond to environmental change.
Managing disturbance.
Building a portfolio of livelihood activities.
Developing coping strategies.
Nurturing diversity for re-organization and renewal.
Nurturing ecological memory.
Nurturing a diversity of institutions to respond to change.
Creating political space for experimentation.
Building user trust .
Using social memory as source of innovation and novelty.
Combining different kinds of knowledge.
Building capacity to monitor the environment.
Building capacity for participatory management.
Building institutions that frame learning, memory and creativity.
Creating cross-scale mechanisms to share knowledge.
Combining local and scientific knowledge.
Creating opportunity for self-organization.
Building capacity for user self-organization.
Building conflict management mechanisms.
Building self-organization for equity in resource access and allocation.
Building self-organization in response to external drivers.
Creating matching scales of ecosystem and governance.
Creating multi-level governance.
For the CAIS program, we also found evidence it was a short-term coping measure used by
farmers in the regions studied. There were significantly fewer adaptive policy features evident from
the analysis of this policy, relative to the AID program. This observation is consistent with the
Understanding Adaptive Policy Mechanisms Through Farm-level Studies of Adaptation to Weather Events in Alberta
65
predominantly negative feedback of the policy from respondents interviewed across the Prairie
Provinces. Nonetheless, four examples of adaptive policy mechanisms were identified, further
supporting the hypothesis that policies which help communities cope with stress will have adaptive
policy features.
But we must also ask the question, is vulnerability reduced and resilience increased or maintained
through the use of this income stabilization policy? With respect to vulnerability, adaptive capacity
is certainly increased via policies which help farmers to stabilize their economic resources. If
exposure to the climate stress remains the same over time, vulnerability could be said to be reduced
via the policy. If, however, climate change results in an increase in the exposure to climate shocks
and stresses, then vulnerability may not be reduced, and could possibly increase.
With respect to resilience, the CAIS program does not appear to have as many positive attributes
as compared to the AID program. Most notably, since the payout is not linked with any change in
behaviour, with regard to coping or adapting to the stress that was experienced, the income
stabilization payout does not appear to help farmers learn to live with change and uncertainty.
7.2 What Adaptive Features Enable Policies to Remain Effective?
A summary of the adaptive policy mechanisms observed in the three generations of income
stabilization programs in Alberta and also in the ID related programs is provided in Table 7-2.
Examples were observed across all seven adaptive policy mechanisms. Most examples came from
the AID program and share the context of dealing with unanticipated conditions.
One example of automatic adjustment was observed in the ID‘s IRP and involved the inter-district
funding formula. Half of the funds are allocated based on the number of irrigation acres in each
district, and half are allocated based on the infrastructure replacement cost of specified
infrastructure in each district. Each of these two values will shift within and between IDs from year
to year, and thus the policy is able to adjust for changing needs annually.
For acquiring multiple perspectives from an analytical basis, an example of integrated assessment
was seen in the ID‘s WSA in which water supply forecasts and water rationing strategies for
irrigation and non-irrigation users were formulated. There were four examples for obtaining
multiple perspectives through deliberative processes. The first was from the next generation of
income stabilization programs under APF II in which stakeholder consultations were held to
understand sector requirements in the new suite of risk-management programs. The other three
examples were from ID-related programs. For example, in developing water transfers, ID‘s are
required to hold a public meeting to discuss the potential transfer and must hold a plebiscite to
gain the approval of at least 50 per cent of the irrigators in the district before a transfer application
will go forward to Alberta Environment. Also, in relation to the 2001 WSA, ID‘s brought together
Understanding Adaptive Policy Mechanisms Through Farm-level Studies of Adaptation to Weather Events in Alberta
66
a diverse group of stakeholders (IDs, people from cities and towns, recreational water users and
industrial water users) who were able to reach consensus regarding how to equitably share the
available water during a drought year.
Examples of formal review and improvement processes were observed in the ID-related programs.
The WSA developed mechanisms to monitor and equitably distribute whatever amount of water
that would become available. A conservation holdback provision was developed in which a transfer
application process triggers an environmental review by the regional director, giving him/her
discretion to hold back up to 10 per cent of the water allocation being transferred to meet the
government‘s conservation objectives and protect aquatic environments. Also, the Water
Management Planning Process for the SSRB committed to reviewing the regulation in 2000
because of ―limitations of the databases and estimates of current and future water uses.‖
It was evident that one of the ID programs‘ greatest strengths (from the perspective of adaptive
policies) was its ability to promote self-organization and social networks. In response to the 2001
drought, the IDs organized themselves to create a water-sharing arrangement to allow all licence
holders to receive an equitable portion of whatever water would become available. The SMRID
was instrumental in developing networks in the region to work together to construct emergency
preparedness plans. Self-organization was also facilitated through the introduction of formal and
informal water markets within the IDs. By allowing water rights to be tradable, the province of
Alberta has transformed ―historical licenses into marketable commodities,‖ ultimately providing
flexibility in what had become an intractable water allocation situation.
The mechanism of subsidiarity was observed in both policies studied. Alberta withdrew from
NISA in 1995 based on concerns that government funding was going every year to every farmer
regardless of need. To address, in 2001 the province of Alberta created the FIDP to provide
income support to farmers in the province experiencing, for reasons beyond their control, an
extreme reduction in farm income. This illustrates how bringing the governance closer to the
ground (for example, from the federal to provincial level) was necessary to create a program that
responded to the needs of farmers. The IDA is used by the board of the irrigation district to
determine fees for administration, maintenance and rehabilitation of the irrigation infrastructure .
The districts operate independently and how they carry out their functions can vary due to their
differing sizes and physical characteristics, providing needed flexibility for responding to surprises
and emerging issues.
Finally, with respect to the adaptive policy mechanism for promoting variation, under Canada‘s
new income stabilization program, a suite of programs are being developed to complement one
another and manage risk:
Understanding Adaptive Policy Mechanisms Through Farm-level Studies of Adaptation to Weather Events in Alberta
67
AgriInvest – provides coverage for small drops in income and allows for investments that
help mitigate risks or improve market income;
AgriStability – provides support when a farmer experiences larger farm income losses;
AgriRecovery – provides a coordinated process for federal, provincial and territorial
governments to respond rapidly when disasters strike, filling gaps not covered by existing
programs; and
AgriInsurance – an existing program which includes insurance against production losses
for specified perils (weather, pests and disease) and is being expanded to include more
commodities (AAFC, 2007).
This need for variation was illustrated during the years of the CAIS program in Alberta–the AFRP
was created in 2007 to address the economic strain that Alberta farmers were facing attributed to
Canada‘s rising dollar, the drop in livestock prices and high feed prices spurred by demand for
biofuels in the U.S.
Understanding Adaptive Policy Mechanisms Through Farm-level Studies of Adaptation to Weather Events in Alberta
68
Table 7.2 Summary of Adaptive Policy mechanisms for the CAIS and Alberta Irrigation District Programs
Adapting to Anticipated Conditions Adapting to Unanticipated Conditions
Automatic adjustment
Integrated assessment
Multi-perspective deliberation
Formal review and continuous learning
Encouraging self-organization and networks
Subsidiarity Promoting variation
ID: IRP–the inter-district funding formula.
ID: 2001 Water Sharing Agreement–water supply forecasts and water rationing strategies for irrigation and non-irrigation users were formulated
APF II-national stakeholder consultations held to understand what the sector requires in the new suite of programs for farmers to manage risk.
NISA-report of the Auditor General of Canada–Farm Income Protection.
ID: 2001 Water Sharing Agreement–the IDs proposed a water-sharing arrangement to allow all licence holders to receive an equitable portion of whatever water would become available.
NISA-Alberta withdrew from NISA in 1995 based on concerns that government funding was going every year to every farmer regardless of need. In 2001, Alberta created the FIDP to provide income support to Alberta farmers experiencing, for reasons beyond their control, an extreme reduction in farm income.
CAIS-AFRP was created in 2007 to address the economic strain that Alberta farmers were facing attributed to Canada’s rising dollar, the drop in livestock prices and high feed prices spurred on by demand for biofuels in the U.S.
ID: SSRB Water Management Policy–Multi-stakeholder process incorporating input from the Alberta Water Resources Commission, Irrigation Council, and discussions with Members of the Legislative Assembly.
ID: SSRB Water Management Planning–committed to reviewing the regulation in 2000 because of the “limitations of the databases and estimates of current and future water uses”
ID: Emergency preparedness–The SMRID has been instrumental in developing networks in the region to work together to construct emergency preparedness plans.
IDA–fees for administration, maintenance and rehabilitation of the irrigation infrastructure are determined yearly by the board of the ID. Each district operates independently and how they carry out their functions can vary due to their differing sizes and physical characteristics
APF II–The new suite of programs were developed to complement one another so that they can be responsive, predictable and bankable
Understanding Adaptive Policy Mechanisms Through Farm-level Studies of Adaptation to Weather Events in Alberta
69
ID: Water transfers–irrigation district required to hold a public meeting discussing the potential transfer and must hold a plebiscite to gain the approval of at least 50 per cent of the irrigators in the district before the transfer application will go forward to Alberta Environment.
ID: 2001 WSA–during the 2001 drought year, mechanisms were developed to monitor and equitably distribute whatever amount of water would become available.
ID: Water markets–by allowing water rights to be tradable, the province has transformed “historical licenses into marketable commodities,” ultimately providing flexibility in what had become an intractable water allocation situation.
2001 WSA–brought together a diverse group of stakeholders (IDs, people from cities and towns, recreational water users and industrial water users) who were able to reach consensus regarding how to equitably share the available water during a drought year.
ID: Conservation holdback–the transfer application process triggers an environmental review by the regional director, giving him/her discretion to hold back up to 10 per cent of the water allocation being transferred to meet the government’s conservation objectives and protect aquatic environments.
Understanding Adaptive Policy Mechanisms Through Farm-level Studies of Adaptation to Weather Events in Alberta
70
8.0 References
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (2008). ―$8.8M for Alberta Water Projects.‖ Press Release,
March 19, 2008. Accessed March 20, 2008 from: http://news.gc.ca/web/article-
eng.do?crtr.sj1D=&mthd=advSrch&crtr.mnthndVl=4&nid=386569&crtr.dpt1D=&crtr.tp1D=&c
rtr.lc1D=&crtr.yrStrtVl=2008&crtr.kw=Alberta%2BWater%2BProjects&crtr.dyStrtVl=1&crtr.aud
1D=&crtr.mnthStrtVl=1&crtr.yrndVl=2009&crtr.dyndVl=9.
AAFC (2008). ―Agricultural Policy Framework‖ (2008). Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.
Accessed January 30, 2008, available at: http://www4.agr.gc.ca/AAFC-AAC/display-
afficher.do?id=1173969168670&lang=eng.
Alberta Agriculture and Food (2007). Irrigation in Alberta: Facts and Figures for the Year 2006.
Resource Sciences Branch, Agriculture Stewardship Division, Edmonton, Alberta.
Alberta Agriculture Food and Rural Development (AAFRD) (2000). Irrigation in Alberta.
Technology and Innovation Branch, Lethbridge, Alberta.
Alberta Agriculture Food and Rural Development (AAFRD) (2004). Irrigation Development in
Alberta: Water Use and Impact on Regional Development. Submission to the International Joint
Commission. Accessed March 17, 2008 from: http://www.ijc.org/rel/pdf/83_stmary-
milk_letter.pdf.
Alberta Institute of Agrologists (2005). Environment for Growth: People to Water, Water to
People. Discussion Paper presented at the 2005 Banff Conference on Agriculture, Food and the
Environment.
Auditor General of Canada, Office of. 2007. Report of the Auditor General of Canada to the
House of Commons: Chapter 4, Canadian Agricultural Income Stabilization. Accessed from:
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=3576414&Language=E&M
ode=1&Parl=39&Ses=2.
Bankes, N. and Kwasniuk, A. (2005). ―The St. Mary River Irrigation District Licence Amendment
Decision: Irrigation Districts as a Law unto Themselves,‖ Journal of Environmental Law and
Practice, November 16, 1-18.
Bankes, N. (1995). ―Water Law Reform in Alberta: Paying Obseisance to the ‗Lords of Yesterday‘
or Creating a Water Charter for the Future?‖ Resources: the Newsletter of the Canadian Institute
Understanding Adaptive Policy Mechanisms Through Farm-level Studies of Adaptation to Weather Events in Alberta
71
of Resources Law, No. 49 (Winter), 1-12.
Bjornlund, H., Nichol, L. and Klein, K. (2006). ―Alberta‘s Water for Life Strategy: Some early
indications of its acceptance by the irrigation industry in Southern Alberta.‖ [Paper presented at
the 2006 Annual Meeting of the Canadian Agricultural Economics Society, Montreal, Quebec.]
Hedley, Douglas D. ―Origins of Canadian Agricultural Support and Stabilization Policy.‖ China-
Canada Seminar on Agricultural Legislation and Technical Cooperation, June 2005 Beijing–
Kunming-Hohhot. Accessed February 11, 2008 from:
http://www.parlcent.ca/asia/Docs/Canadian%20papers/Origins%20of%20Canadian%20Agricult
ural%20Support%20and%20Stabilization%20Policy_en.pdf.
Horbulyk, T. (2006). ―Liquid Gold? Water Markets in Canada,‖ in Karen Bakker (ed.), Eau
Canada: The Future of Canada‘s Water, UBC Press, Vancouver.
Irrigation Water Management Study Committee (IWMSC) (2002). South Saskatchewan River Basin
(SSRB): Irrigation in the 21st Century–Vol. 1 Summary Report. Published by the Alberta Irrigation
Projects Association, Lethbridge, Alberta.
Klassen, S. (2002). ―Alberta Irrigators Ration and Sell Water,‖ Milk River Watershed News, Spring,
Vol. 5(1), 1.
Medlock, J. and McCoy, A. (2008). ―Farmer Coping and Adaptation Responses to Weather Shocks
and Stresses in Southern Alberta.‖ Prepared for: The International Institute for Sustainable
Development, March 12, 2008.
Nichol, L. (2005). Irrigation Water Markets in Southern Alberta. MA Thesis, University of
Lethbridge, Department of Economics.
Percy, D. (2005). ―Responding to Water Scarcity in Western Canada,‖ Texas Law Review, Vol. 83,
7, 2091-2107.
Rush, R., Ivey, J., de Loe, R. and Kreitzwiser, R. (2004). Adapting to Climate Change in the
Oldman River Watershed, Alberta: A Discussion paper for Watershed Stakeholders.
Discussion Paper produced by the Guelph Water Management Group, University of Guelph,
Guelph, Ontario.
Smit, B. and Pilifosova, O. 2003. ―Adaptation to Adaptive Capacity and Vulnerability Reduction.‖
Understanding Adaptive Policy Mechanisms Through Farm-level Studies of Adaptation to Weather Events in Alberta
72
In J.B. Smith, R.J.T. Klein and S. Huq, eds., Climate Change, Adaptive Capacity and Development.
Imperial College Press, London.
Smit, B., et al. 2001. Adaptation to climate change in the context of sustainable development and
equity. In J.J. McCarthy and O.F. Canziani, eds., Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation and
Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group III to the 3rd Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Swanson, D.A., Hiley, J.C., Venema, H.D. and Grosshans, R. 2007. ―Indicators of Adaptive
Capacity to Climate Change for Agriculture in the Prairie Region of Canada: An analysis based on
Statistics Canada‘s Census of Agriculture.‖ Working Paper for the Prairie Climate Resilience
Project, Winnipeg: International Institute for Sustainable Development. Accessed March 2008
from: http://www.iisd.org/climate/vulnerability/resilience.asp.
Zafiriou, M., and Smith, D. ―Overview of Agriculture Structural Parameters for Canada.‖
Structural Change as a Source of Trade Disputes Under NAFTA; Proceedings of the 7th
Agricultural and Food Policy Systems Information Workshop, 2002. Accessed February 11, 2008
from: http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/handle/16866.